On 22.04.2011 0:50, Barend Gehrels wrote:
On 21-4-2011 21:42, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Barend Gehrels wrote:
Next step: then "has_" is more convenient, because complying to existing practice. So: "has_operator_not". Perfect. Nope. As has been noted before, that implies ownership. A global operator doesn't belong to anything, so nothing "has" the operator.
Global operator is a part of class' interface.
You are right about ownership, I didn't read all the previous discussions, and didn't realize this when writing my mail, sorry about that. So, of course, the has_ prefix is indeed not logical for those cases. Is it, by the way, possible to distinguish between these cases or has that been discussed before as well?
??? :/ -- - Do you speak English? Мужик с глубоким вздохом: - Yes I do. А хули толку?