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: 914-259-6499 Reply-to: hadsell@blueskystudios.com Blue Sky Studios http://www.blueskystudios.com 44 South Broadway, White Plains, NY 10601