[boost] Why is operator. not overridable?

From: Peter Bindels (dascandy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-11 11:48:36

Hi,

I was wondering, why is overloading operator. (period) forbidden? It
would make a few odd applications possible (dynamic inheritance and
transparent remote method invocation spring to my mind) and it would
be fairly generic. The only sidecase I can see is that operator.
itself would not be looked up through operator. .

I read that there was previous debate on the subject, but I haven't
been able to find why it was rejected.

Thanks,
Peter