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:
> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk