Avoiding the need to invoke the operator explicitly as a specialized template, among other things.
  • addie@feddit.uk
    6·
    2 years ago

    I feel that this is something that would be fixed by writing your test suites first. If you think you have designed a tremendously clever API, but then the code that calls it is an absolute mess, then you have not designed a tremendously clever API.

    General principles of restraint and not having to use every available language feature all the time apply here as everywhere - keep it simple, stupid. The only WTF I want when reading your code is, “I didn’t realise there could be such a straightforward way to do it”.

    • gracicot
      3·
      2 years ago

      I had designed a system with what I thought was a good API, wrote the test for it and I was satisfied how simple it was to use the thing but then, when it came to integrate it, it was clunky and no good way to actually use the system.

      I don’t think it’s always obvious when an API is good or bad, even with tests.

  • o11c
    2·
    2 years ago

    I’ve been annoyed at this in Python sometimes, since its containers have some operations named only, some operator only, and some available as both.

    C++'s standard containers mostly have useless operator overloads though, so its technical win here isn’t particularly impressive. One thing you definitely notice when porting C++ code to other languages is just how many silly dances various APIs force you to use for common tasks.

  • vrt3@feddit.nl
    1·
    1 year ago

    I agree we should use operator overloading only when it really fits the use case. Especially the function call operator is easily misused.

    I don’t completely agree with Raymond Chen here though. Firstly I don’t think providing both an explicit Load() function and the function call operator is the solution. Just keep things simple and obvious: provide Load() and remove the function call operator.

    Secondly, why is StorageLoader even a class (or actually a struct here, but we know that’s the same thing in C++)? Unless Raymond is leaving out something essential, there is no state. Just make a function:

    template<typename DataType>
LoadFromStorage(StorageOptions<DataType> const* options) {
    // ...
}

    This solves all the problems: you can simply call it, even without operator overloading (because it’s already a function), and doesn’t make it awkward to specify the data type we need. We’re writing C++ here, not Java where everything has to be a class even if it doesn’t have any reason to be.