From: brangdon@cix.compulink.co.uk (Dave Harris)

stewart@sig.com (Rob Stewart) wrote (abridged):

...

I overstated the case. How many types will one have to overload operator<< (and operator>>) for? The combinatorial explosion (containers X types to use with the initialization library X 2) will be overwhelming.

You've lost me. Why does the choice of operator<<() instead of operator,() produce a combinatorial explosion of overloads? It's mostly just a change of name.

I lost myself, it would seem. When I was thinking that, I wasn't paying enough attention to the subject at hand and was thinking in terms not of the initialization library but of global operators. As you say, it's merely a change in operator. Also, the implication of your idea to overload operator<<, that overloading an operator for which the evaluation order doesn't change because you've overloaded it, is probably wise.

...

I still think of operator<< and operator>> as doing formatted I/O.

Well, at one time we all thought it did bitwise shifts.

How true. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;