`to` is a factory function for pairs, there's no inherent connection to maps.

# getting-started

[karelpeeters]

to is a factory function for pairs, there's no inherent connection to maps.

[Sam]

Yeah, i was wondering why isn't that decided to be an operator

public infix fun <A, B> A.to(that: B): Pair<A, B> = Pair(this, that)

[Sam]

Is it just because overloading doesn't make sense?

[karelpeeters]

I'm not sure what you mean, how could this be an operator?

[karelpeeters]

It's also better language design, now there's no special case for this.

[Sam]

like operator fun <T : Comparable<T> > T.rangeTo( that : T) : ClosedRange<T>

[Sam]

for call site usage of start..end

[Nikky]

well that could be made as a infix function too butthen you would need to write

1 `..` 10

looks funny i guess

[Sam]

@Nikky didn't mean infix, just the operator

[Sam]

was trying to get my head around as to when to make an extension an operator and when not to

[Nikky]

and that goes back to why to is not a operator.. because it does not need to be

[Sam]

Got it, basically usage determines

[karelpeeters]

Well you have no choice, you can't add new operators.

[Nikky]

well generally when the operation matches what you are doing.. there is super hard to read scala code that goes hame with operator overloading

[Sam]

oh that too

[karelpeeters]

But for the language designers it's about finding a balance I guess. Also so they couldn't reuse .. for pairs, since then 0..5 should be a pair too.

[Nikky]

so only use the operators when it makes sense and will keep making sense

[Nikky]

but you can go ham with extension and infix functions, those are easier to understand in general, but there too is a balance between extremlyDescriptivename and super short and confusing names

[Nikky]

String.fix() = ... <- wtf would that do

[Nikky]

well i hope i got my points across

[Sam]

makes sense