From: Gary Powell (Gary.Powell_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-11 09:47:57
> As others have mentioned, it'll break code which
> depends on the implicit conversion of your T; also
> (i++).member will not work
Now if Bjarne had only listened when I argued for operator.() back in the
> and & (i++) will not
> produce what you expect --
This could be fixed with yet another overload to forward the request. And we
could add operator*() and operator->()....of course this all requires the
usual gamut of type deduction templates....
You know this swamp we started to drain could be fixed by a very smart
compiler. One that noticed that either the return value was used or not and
then do the smart thing...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk