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

Richard Hadsell wrote:

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).

D&E contains the discussion in 11.5.2, "Smart References". Sebastian Redl