Article View: comp.std.c++
Article #950Re: operator dot?
From: Joe Buck
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1991 00:15
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1991 00:15
14 lines
1076 bytes
1076 bytes
In article <4327@lupine.NCD.COM>, rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes:
|> In article <70904@microsoft.UUCP> jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) writes:
|> >Does anyone know what happened to consideration of overloadable operator dot?
|>
|> We can only hope that people realized that it was a horrible idea, and
|> that it then died a quiet and lonely death.
Well, Ron, educate me. Why is it a horrible idea? I claim that, for
many problems, a "smart reference" object is superior to a "smart pointer"
object.
--
Joe Buck
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<12036@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!rex!ames!pasteur!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuckReferences:
<70904@microsoft.UUCP> <4327@lupine.NCD.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!rex!ames!pasteur!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck From: jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: operator dot? Message-ID: <12036@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 16 Mar 91 00:15:04 GMT References: <70904@microsoft.UUCP> <4327@lupine.NCD.COM> Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU Reply-To: jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) Lines: 14