Re: [RFC] Operator Overrides -- Lite Edition

Hi, >> 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. I'm not sure. Does this mean that such "hack" is unavoidable? And I don't really understand what "pointless hack" means. This would make sense if operator overloading was already allowed, but it isn't. >> 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. > > It’s a bit clunky to use without the extension, but that’s mostly because I didn’t want > to get into OperandPosition from Jordan’s RFC. Many people were confused about it, so I’m just > avoiding it. This is very confusing me. Why does this need to be a child class of GMP? Regards, Saki