| work in progress | string |
Rename feature infix "+" to infix "&".
Please select one of the following:
Strongly prefer infix &
Prefer infix &
Prefer infix +
Strongly prefer infix +
Don't mind (happy either way)
Abstain (not happy either way)
infix "+" is curently implemented by HACT, VE and SE, but not by ISE (although they have announced their intention to support it). A popular alternative feature name is infix "&".
Pierre Metras (25 October 1999)
What about using infix "&" instead of infix "+", already used in
typography
to associate two sentences, like in "David & Gotiath"? ...
BTW, I don't think that the symbol "&" has played a special role
in group
theory or Mathematics in general, so its use as string concatenation
will
not hurt the Eiffelist mathematicians;-)
Roger Browne (26 October 1999)
print(i1 & " is between " & i2 & " and " & i3 & '%N')Hmm... the more I look at it the more I like infix "&" in GENERAL.
Paul Cohen (29 October 1999)
"&" is an operator that is well defined and easy to understand! I feel that the "&" operator is very close to my initutive notion of how to express string concatenation.
Scott Steinmann (29 October 1999)
The only problem with using '&' is that it might be interpreted by a novice or a person with a C/C++ background as meaning "logical and" or "bitwise and", which would greatly modify their determination of the statement's result. The character '+' does not have this ambiguity.
Joachim Durchholz (1 November 1999)
in Eiffel, & is not a standard operator, so we're free to use it to distinguish between concatenation and addition.
James McKim (2 November 1999)
Use "&" instead of "+" as the name of the routine. Note that this should have minimal impact even on vendors that are already using "+" as they can simply include the former as a synonym for the latter.
Franck Arnaud (3 November 1999)
The supposed benefits of "&" (well balanced by its disadvantages like the 'space after free operator' problem) compared to "+" seem rather underwhelming to justify moving from existing practice. And using synonyms would be really a waste of namespace and clarity of the short forms and portability issues (e.g. when redefining) for vitually no benefit.
Strongly prefer infix "+"
franck.arnaud@omgroup.com
glennm@westernport.com
manus@eiffel.com
kwaxer@aha.ru
Prefer infix "+"
sergei_ivanov@object-tools.com
steinman@sco.edu
peter@deakin.edu.au
xavier@halstenbach.com
ericb@gobosoft.com
fm@eiffel.de
jweirich@one.net
Don't mind (happy either way)
richieb@netlabs.net
joachim.durchholz@halstenbach.de
Prefer infix "&"
dougpardee@my-deja.com
saunders@wchat.on.ca
Strongly prefer infix "&"
genepi@sympatico.ca
email votes:
Prefer infix "&"
pc_cohen@hotmail.com
Simon Parker <sparker@eiffel.ie>