a + b
suffer more from this than plus(a,b)
? In both cases, libraries will only clash if both define a function with the same name taking an A and a B. The only difference is that it is called + in the former case, and plus in the latter.The following is pretty standard:
foo::plus(a, b) // or foo.plus(a, b)
bar::plus(a, b) // or bar.plus(a, b)
Whereas this is more awkward: a foo::+ b // or a foo.+ b
a bar::+ b // or a bar.+ b
By default, git's diff and merge want lines-of-code to be meaningful and are set up for that.
It's not easy to do but when I do it, it makes it a lot easier for me to want to interact with them.
And if you want, ive built tools and tricks to help me with this that I could share.
I think regular vim will do all this as well but I think maybe the commands are different?
How about instead of using tradition to decide if something is beneficial or not, you just assess it on its value?
This is an egregious use of the noncentral fallacy.[1]
Conforming to this 50-year tradition makes the language more familiar and easier to learn, so it's reasonable to question why the language chose differently.
[1]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...