[boost] Re: Operators definition for deficient compilers

From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-08 21:57:50

on 3/8/00 9:56 AM, Maarten Keijzer at mak_at_[hidden] wrote:

> And might not need it for MSVC12 anymore... But kidding aside, I just found
> an interesting loophole that does compile under MSVC6, but that changes the
> functionality of operators.hpp dramatically. I can't oversee all
> implications of this change so I'll just give you some code that does
> compile and some of the implications I can see. Feel free to burn this
> proposal if it is too flawed.

Maarten,

Sounds interesting, but I can't put together a clear picture of what you're
proposing and how it would be used. I know that other people have made
strong arguments that operators.hpp gets things the wrong way 'round for
some operations like array multiplication, where you really want to define
operator*=() in terms of operator*(). It might be that some applications
(like expression templates, as you suggest) require a different set of
operator templates.

-Dave