From ddda5bd08b9073b0264c515cb5610459c6ec0767 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: aikeru Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2023 16:40:21 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Fix grammar Minor missing word, but makes it hard to understand without it :) --- README.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index e9146c9..ade6037 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ Note: The `Operators` function and the above decorators could be exposed from a For a detailed investigation, see [LANGCOMP.md](https://github.com/littledan/proposal-operator-overloading/blob/master/LANGCOMP.md). tl;dr: - It's a pretty popular design choice to conservatively support overloading only on some operators, and to define some in terms of others, as this proposal does. User-defined operators have been difficult to varying extents in other programming languages. -- The way this proposal dispatches on the two operands is somewhat novel, most similar to Matlab. Unfortunately, of the established, popular mechanisms meet the design goals articulated in this document. +- The way this proposal dispatches on the two operands is somewhat novel, most similar to Matlab. Unfortunately, none of the established, popular mechanisms meet the design goals articulated in this document. ### Can this work with subclasses, rather than only defining overloading on base classes?