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

Peter Bindels 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. .

Heh, I think there you have nailed it.

I read that there was previous debate on the subject, but I haven't been able to find why it was rejected.

And there also was some debate on overloadable whitespace operator: http://www.research.att.com/~bs/whitespace98.pdf Regards, Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...