Re: [RFC] Operator Overrides -- Lite Edition

On Sun, Jun 30, 2024, at 06:59, Rob Landers wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2024, at 01:28, Saki Takamachi wrote: >> Hi, >> >> > Hello internals, >> > >> > I've updated the RFC to include final-ish examples (barring any further >> > constructive feedback), a prototype implementation, and an objections section. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Rob >> >> It seems like the "hack" I mentioned is still possible, am I misunderstanding >> something? > > That’s always going to be a possibility, no matter what we do or how we do it. I think it > would be a rather pointless hack now that I can run the code. For the most part, the engine treats > these as numbers and trying to dodge that will land you in hot water eventually. After playing with the code and seeing what I could get away with, making the GMP class readonly appears to prevent many abuses, so I have amended the RFC and prototype code. > >> >> And I don't understand the purpose of polyfills at all. If you're not using the >> GMP extensions and can't do operator overloading, won't you just have a class with >> protected methods that are never used and don't actually do anything? > > Ah, that could probably be clearer in the RFC, but you have to make it public to be able to use > it. I've iterated it a few times in the text of the RFC. — Rob