Re: Overhead of subscript operator for STL maps

From:

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

19 Oct 2008 14:56:28 GMT

Message-ID:

<logic-20081019165506@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>

James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> writes:

If you're providing user defined operators, it's up to you to
define them in a "logical" fashion---logical, in this case,
being largely determined by what the built-in operators do.

  I have - after several decades of guess-work - eventually
  found that ?logical? often is /not/ intended to mean ?with
  regard to logic?, but ?rule-like? (?regular?, ?systematic?),
  more precisely ?ruled by a /small/ set of /simple/ rules?.

  So, one might use this wording:

      ?If you're providing user defined operators, it's up to
      you to define them in a rule-like fashion---that is, being
      ruled by the same rules that determine what the built-in
      operators do.?

  If we use the same rules, we do not extend the set of all
  rules, and therefore all operators will be defined according
  to set of rules that is as small as possible.

  See also:

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/01/basics_logic_aka_its_illogical_1.php

  .