Operator overloading for collections?

[Red IO]

That's completely missing the argument and ignoring 100% of what I said.
Nobody wants an overloading apocalypse like in c++.
The people simply argue that some parts of the language are equally
deserving operators like numbers, for example containers. Nobody is arguing
that numbers don't deserve operators. But other features do as well. I can
continue naming things in Java that have operators that aren't numbers.
Just to name another example the new operator. It could well be 2 methods
malloc and init but it has its own operator because it makes things
clearer.

Defending the status quo with 0 arguments behind it and seemingly not even
reading neither the original question nor the comment you are answering to
is nothing more then destructive and should not be the climate of a
discussion mailing list.

On Mon, Sep 1, 2025, 23:43 Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:

> > I'm not writing this to try to change your mind. I know your take on
> this is clear. But for the sake of the open discussion I'm writing this in
> defense of the great (not new) proposal.
>
> First, let me point out that we have now strayed WAY outside of the
> charter of amber-dev, from “curious question about will X ever happen”
> (which is in the “tolerably off topic” category) to “let me lobby for a
> massive change in language evolution approach.”
>
> > But enough with the foreword. I think the numbers are special argument
> is pretty weak and falls apart as soon as you look at it.
>
> Then perhaps it is a mistake to even consider operator overloading at
> all.  If this is how enough people feel — that supporting numbers only is
> so bad that it is worse than doing nothing — then we have to seriously
> consider doing nothing.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-dev/attachments/20250902/768080a5/attachment.htm>