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

From: Richard Hadsell (hadsell_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-11 12:08:00

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. .
>
>I read that there was previous debate on the subject, but I haven't
>been able to find why it was rejected.
>  
>
This is a bit off-topic, but you might consult Stroustrup.  In his "The 
C++ Programming Language" (3rd or Special edition) he says in section 
11.2, in reference to operator. and 2 others that can't be overloaded: 
"They take a name, rather than a value, as their second operand and 
provide the means of referring to members.  Allowing them to be 
overloaded would lead to subtleties."  And he refers to his "The Design 
and Evolution of C++" (Addison-Wesley, 1994).

-- 
Dick Hadsell			914-259-6320  Fax: [phone]
Reply-to:			hadsell_at_[hidden]
Blue Sky Studios                http://www.blueskystudios.com
44 South Broadway, White Plains, NY 10601