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

From: Sebastian Redl (sebastian.redl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-11 12:22:28

Richard Hadsell wrote:
> 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).
>   
D&E contains the discussion in 11.5.2, "Smart References".

Sebastian Redl