From: Andrei Alexandrescu \(See Website for Email\) (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-10 14:32:10
"Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:200407101115.35218.ghost_at_cs.msu.su...
> Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website for Email) wrote:
>
> > > As Andras Erdei the gap between people who know about special
properties
> >
> > of
> >
> > > operator(), and those who know that overloaded version does not have
that
> > > properties is very, very narrow.
> >
> > Let's not forget that this basis is just a conjecture.
>
> The opposite statement, that user expects operator, to do sequencing and
will
> expect the same from overloaded one, is conjecture as well.
That is very very true indeed.
> I think it's a bit hard to draw any definitive conclusion that overloading
> operator, is evil unless users of assignment library will start
complaining
> here, and I don't thin I have more to add.
Great. No need to get irritated; in some sense, we're all in the same boat.
:o)
For the record, I've decided to eliminate that coding standard for now. The
sheer facts that (1) a useful library overloading operator,() is in boost,
and (2) reasonable people can disagree about said overloading being good or
bad, convinced me.
Andrei