Hacker News Reader

What's with the weird cryptic, trigraphish syntax for something common as constructors and destructors?

How are _init(struct obj o) _cleanup(sturct o) not enough? Okay, except those rare cases when you need a _new(struct obj o).

View on HN

[on the Cforall team] It broadly matches our other operator-overloading syntax, where the ?'s show where the arguments go, e.g. ?+? for binary addition, ?++ for postincrement and ++? for preincrement. For something as common as constructors and destructors, a concise syntax is a desirable feature.

What I get out of this is that you like to play with languages rather than make actual things with them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com