Re: [boost] Why is operator. not overridable?

From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-11 11:54:24

Peter Bindels wrote:
> 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. .

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:

http://www.research.att.com/~bs/whitespace98.pdf

Regards,
                Stefan

-- 
      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...