Re: [boost] [challenge: Dynamic Overloads]

From: Marco Costalba (mcostalba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-09 06:54:11

On 10/9/07, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 10/8/07, Joel de Guzman <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Marco Costalba wrote:
> > >
> > > Because the following line
> > >
> > > if (a = b)  // here = instead of == is intended
> > >     assert(a==b);
> > >
> > > should never fail for any properly defined operator=() and
> > > operator==() it derives that operator=() as proposed for our overload
> > > does not satisfy the above very intuitive concepts (because &foo1 !=
> > > &foo2) so I would say it cannot be called 'idiomatic' for this case.
> >
> > Yep. Agreed. See my other post why I am convinced your intuition
> > is correct :-) No need to convince me more ;)
> >
>
> How about 'register' instead of 'add' or 'assign' ?
>

Does is "register" a reserved keyword?

Marco