From: Andrei Alexandrescu \(See Website for Email\) (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-10 14:32:10
"Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website for Email) wrote:
> > > As Andras Erdei the gap between people who know about special
> > of
> > > operator(), and those who know that overloaded version does not have
> > > properties is very, very narrow.
> > Let's not forget that this basis is just a conjecture.
> The opposite statement, that user expects operator, to do sequencing and
> expect the same from overloaded one, is conjecture as well.
That is very very true indeed.
> I think it's a bit hard to draw any definitive conclusion that overloading
> operator, is evil unless users of assignment library will start
> here, and I don't thin I have more to add.
Great. No need to get irritated; in some sense, we're all in the same boat.
For the record, I've decided to eliminate that coding standard for now. The
sheer facts that (1) a useful library overloading operator,() is in boost,
and (2) reasonable people can disagree about said overloading being good or
bad, convinced me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk