Article View: comp.std.c++
Article #1017Re: operator dot?
From: Jim ADCOCK
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1991 22:37
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1991 22:37
19 lines
1192 bytes
1192 bytes
In article <4627@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes: |First off, the idea of overloading "." is horrible because "." is not |an operator. | |Even if it were an operator (which it obviously isn't) .... ARM page 330: "The following operators cannot be overloaded: . .* :: ?: " Ron is attempting to use naming convention to argue his case. He insists that . cannot be called an "operator" [even though that is how ARM and the working papers refer to it] and then uses his refusal to accept the name "operator" as justification for not allowing it to be overloaded. I disagree that such attempts to argue via naming conventions have anything to do with whether or not operator dot should be overloaded.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<71657@microsoft.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!microsoft!jimadReferences:
<70904@microsoft.UUCP> <4327@lupine.NCD.COM> <12036@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <4627@lupine.NCD.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!microsoft!jimad From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: operator dot? Message-ID: <71657@microsoft.UUCP> Date: 2 Apr 91 22:37:46 GMT References: <70904@microsoft.UUCP> <4327@lupine.NCD.COM> <12036@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <4627@lupine.NCD.COM> Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA Lines: 19