Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website for Email) wrote:
As Andras Erdei the gap between people who know about special
of
operator(), and those who know that overloaded version does not have
"Vladimir Prus" <ghost@cs.msu.su> wrote in message news:200407101115.35218.ghost@cs.msu.su... properties that
properties is very, very narrow.
Let's not forget that this basis is just a conjecture.
The opposite statement, that user expects operator, to do sequencing and will expect the same from overloaded one, is conjecture as well.
That is very very true indeed.
I think it's a bit hard to draw any definitive conclusion that overloading operator, is evil unless users of assignment library will start complaining here, and I don't thin I have more to add.
Great. No need to get irritated; in some sense, we're all in the same boat. :o) For the record, I've decided to eliminate that coding standard for now. The sheer facts that (1) a useful library overloading operator,() is in boost, and (2) reasonable people can disagree about said overloading being good or bad, convinced me. Andrei