From: musiphil@bawi.org   
      
   On 2013-01-28 13:10, fmatthew5876 wrote:   
   >   
   > When I think of operators I think of their meaning for primitive   
   > types. I use C as my model first and general math notation   
   > second. Sticking with the C meaning removes all possible   
   > ambiguity. If I'm overloading an operator and its not entirely   
   > obvious how my new type extrapolates a primitive type, I don't do   
   > it.   
      
   Though C can be roughly thought of as a subset of C++, there are   
   things from C that you have to unlearn to be better at C++, and no   
   different is the notion that << and >> are only bit-shift operators, I   
   believe.   
      
   > I also believe leveraging operator overloading for streams gives a   
   > bad example for new programmers. Their first hello world program   
   > shows them how they can use operator overloading to invent all kinds   
   > of new meanings for operators.   
      
   New programmers probably learn << and >> first as stream operators,   
   and they don't even know the operators are overloaded. So no harm   
   done.   
      
   Things would not be very different even if they learned << and >> as   
   "primitive" stream operators, and then later told that they were   
   "overloaded" as bit-shift operators for integers on both sides.   
      
   --   
   Seungbeom Kim   
      
      
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)