Over-complicated just for fun?

I found this line in an old project of mine:
1
2
3
//...
cur = Nit->operator->()->second; //(*Nit)->second didn't seem fun enough
//... 
Anyone else enjoy doing things the more complicated way?
Yes, but only when contributing to open source projects. It helps to blend in with the rest of the team.
Anyone else enjoy doing things the more complicated way?

Stroustrup!

In your code, what does Nit::operator() do?
It gives a syntax error, because Nit isn't a class ;)
closed account (zb0S216C)
LB wrote:
"Anyone else enjoy doing things the more complicated way?"

Yes. I'm planning on building a very, very simple kernel. Before I start working on it, I'm developing a new, private, language for its implementation, instead of using an existing language. I just enjoy making seemingly simple tasks more complicated for myself, because I learn from my experiences. Besides, it's no fun when things are simplified.

Wazzak
Last edited on
I'm planning on building a very, very simple kernel.
seemingly simple tasks


Qualifying kernel with the adjective simple does not make building one a seemingly simple task xD


I wrote a Rube-Goldberg routine in an esoteric language that ultimately was just an incrementer. I'll look for the code later
Last edited on
It gives a syntax error, because Nit isn't a class ;)

Ha. Ha. Ha.
Come on! I was asking how/if you defined that operator. :P
You can't overload the scope resolution operator :p
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.