adding function overload to std - Good or Bad?

[Daniel Pitts]

I've created a class with semantics such that it makes sense to call
std::abs(foo) and get a (double) result.

Is it sensible to add to the std namespace, or would it be better to put
an "abs" function it in the same namespace as my class was created?
--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>

[sumsin]

On Jun 7, 6:48 am, Daniel Pitts
<[e-mail]:

I've created a class with semantics such that it makes sense to call
std::abs(foo) and get a (double) result.

Is it sensible to add to the std namespace, or would it be better to put
an "abs" function it in the same namespace as my class was created?

--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>

No it wouldn't be good.

[Daniel Pitts]

sumsin wrote:

On Jun 7, 6:48 am, Daniel Pitts
<[e-mail]:

>I've created a class with semantics such that it makes sense to call
std::abs(foo) and get a (double) result.

Is it sensible to add to the std namespace, or would it be better to put
an "abs" function it in the same namespace as my class was created?

--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>

No it wouldn't be good.

Thanks for the ambiguous response, it's very helpful.

Which wouldn't be good, and more importantly, *why*?

--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>

[sumsin]

On Jun 7, 11:00 am, Daniel Pitts
<[e-mail]:

sumsin wrote:

On Jun 7, 6:48 am, Daniel Pitts
<[e-mail]:

I've created a class with semantics such that it makes sense to call
std::abs(foo) and get a (double) result.

Is it sensible to add to the std namespace, or would it be better to put
an "abs" function it in the same namespace as my class was created?

--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>

No it wouldn't be good.

Thanks for the ambiguous response, it's very helpful.

Which wouldn't be good, and more importantly, *why*?

--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>

because std namespace is meant for standard utilities and your
semantics for 'abs' function is not standard from the language
perspective thats why i am suggesting no. So keep it into your custom
namespace.

[Rolf Magnus]

Daniel Pitts wrote:

sumsin wrote:

>On Jun 7, 6:48 am, Daniel Pitts
<[e-mail]:

>>I've created a class with semantics such that it makes sense to call
std::abs(foo) and get a (double) result.

Is it sensible to add to the std namespace, or would it be better to put
an "abs" function it in the same namespace as my class was created?

--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>

No it wouldn't be good.

Thanks for the ambiguous response, it's very helpful.

Which wouldn't be good,

Putting it into namespace std.

and more importantly, *why*?

One reason would be because the C++ standard forbids it.

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tom=E1s_=D3_h=C9ilidhe?=]

On Jun 7, 7:10*am, sumsin <[e-mail]:

On Jun 7, 11:00 am, Daniel Pitts

<[e-mail]:

sumsin wrote:

On Jun 7, 6:48 am, Daniel Pitts
<[e-mail]:
>I've created a class with semantics such that it makes sense to call
>std::abs(foo) and get a (double) result.

>Is it sensible to add to the std namespace, or would it be better to put
>an "abs" function it in the same namespace as my class was created?

>--
>Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>

No it wouldn't be good.

Thanks for the ambiguous response, it's very helpful.

Which wouldn't be good, and more importantly, *why*?

--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>

because std namespace is meant for standard utilities and your
semantics for 'abs' function is not standard from the language
perspective thats why i am suggesting no. So keep it into your custom
namespace.

Or you could do:

namespace super_std {

using namespace std;

/* Put more stuff here */
}

[red floyd]

Rolf Magnus wrote:

Daniel Pitts wrote:

>sumsin wrote:

>>On Jun 7, 6:48 am, Daniel Pitts
<[e-mail] :
I've created a class with semantics such that it makes sense to call
std::abs(foo) and get a (double) result.

Is it sensible to add to the std namespace, or would it be better to put
an "abs" function it in the same namespace as my class was created?

--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>
No it wouldn't be good.

Thanks for the ambiguous response, it's very helpful.

Which wouldn't be good,

Putting it into namespace std.

>and more importantly, *why*?

One reason would be because the C++ standard forbids it.

I thought it was OK to add template specializations in std::

[Rolf Magnus]

red floyd wrote:

Rolf Magnus wrote:

>Daniel Pitts wrote:

>>sumsin wrote:
On Jun 7, 6:48 am, Daniel Pitts
<[e-mail] e:
I've created a class with semantics such that it makes sense to call
std::abs(foo) and get a (double) result.
>
Is it sensible to add to the std namespace, or would it be better to
put an "abs" function it in the same namespace as my class was
created?
>
--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>
No it wouldn't be good.
Thanks for the ambiguous response, it's very helpful.

Which wouldn't be good,

Putting it into namespace std.

>>and more importantly, *why*?

One reason would be because the C++ standard forbids it.

I thought it was OK to add template specializations in std::

Yes, but the OP wants to add an overload, not a template specialization.

[red floyd]

Rolf Magnus wrote:

red floyd wrote:

>Rolf Magnus wrote:

>>Daniel Pitts wrote:

sumsin wrote:
On Jun 7, 6:48 am, Daniel Pitts
<[e-mail] :
>I've created a class with semantics such that it makes sense to call
>std::abs(foo) and get a (double) result.
>>
>Is it sensible to add to the std namespace, or would it be better to
>put an "abs" function it in the same namespace as my class was
>created?
>>
>--
>Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>
No it wouldn't be good.
Thanks for the ambiguous response, it's very helpful.

Which wouldn't be good,
Putting it into namespace std.

and more importantly, *why*?
One reason would be because the C++ standard forbids it.

I thought it was OK to add template specializations in std::

Yes, but the OP wants to add an overload, not a template specialization.

Isn't std::abs a template?

[Rolf Magnus]

red floyd wrote:

>>>>Which wouldn't be good,
Putting it into namespace std.

and more importantly, *why*?
One reason would be because the C++ standard forbids it.

I thought it was OK to add template specializations in std::

Yes, but the OP wants to add an overload, not a template specialization.

Isn't std::abs a template?

Well, there is an std::abs template, but only for std::valarray:

template<class Tvalarray<Tabs (const valarray<T>&);

The rest are just overloads.