It might be an absolutely adequate method. Imagine that is C++. operator-- is overloaded and controls some machinery. You can’t just command capacity = currSize. Process is important.
yes, but in this particular case I wouldn’t want to second guess my decrement operation just happens to also be calling the white house or whatnot. Just make a method.
Sincerely agree. Explicit is better then implicit, that’s a general engineering axiom.
Instead of overloading and making the next maintainer hunt for overloads, a clearly named function that does the critical steps would make the code immensely more maintainable. C++ is C gone wild.
It might be an absolutely adequate method. Imagine that is C++. operator-- is overloaded and controls some machinery. You can’t just command capacity = currSize. Process is important.
that’s why c++ gets bullied
That is why it is loved: it allows you to use ideas/objects the same way as you do as an engineer. Super cool.
Until the next person with a slightly different mental way of defining things comes along. Or just a future version of you.
yes, but in this particular case I wouldn’t want to second guess my decrement operation just happens to also be calling the white house or whatnot. Just make a method.
It is a method!
thanks
Yeah, just to say it more clearly: that kind of thing is why lots of people out there insist that operator overloading is a bad idea.
And yeah, it’s a C++ thing that mostly doesn’t happen in other languages.
Sincerely agree. Explicit is better then implicit, that’s a general engineering axiom.
Instead of overloading and making the next maintainer hunt for overloads, a clearly named function that does the critical steps would make the code immensely more maintainable. C++ is C gone wild.