Re: [boost] [Serialization] why operator &()?

From: Ian McCulloch (ianmcc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-14 14:49:47

Jim Hyslop wrote:
> Robert Ramey <ramey <at> rrsd.com> writes:
>> 

[...]

>>  I suspected that the & operator
>> was chosen due to its operator precedence being at a particular spot in
>> the operator precedence hierarchy[...]
> Except that operator precedence only applies to "built-in" operators -
> user defined operators are function calls, and have that level of
> precedence.

Really?  I thought the operator precedence was implemented by grammar rules. 
How does the grammar know whether an operator is builtin or user defined? 
I am pretty sure that a+b*c means a+(b*c) irrespective of whether a,b,c are
builtin or UDT.

Cheers,
Ian