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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-12 11:39:15

on Fri May 11 2007, "Peter Bindels" <dascandy-AT-gmail.com> 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. .
>
> I read that there was previous debate on the subject, but I haven't
> been able to find why it was rejected.

This is not really the right forum for that question.  I suggest
comp.std.c++ or comp.lang.c++.moderated.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com
Don't Miss BoostCon 2007! ==> http://www.boostcon.com