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

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