From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-11 11:54:24
Peter Bindels wrote:
> 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. .
Heh, I think there you have nailed it.
> I read that there was previous debate on the subject, but I haven't
> been able to find why it was rejected.
And there also was some debate on overloadable whitespace operator:
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk