In article <1993Oct21.105122.1@happy.uccs.edu> srheintze@happy.uccs.edu writes:
>
>Why do you suppose operator=() cannot be virtual? This seems to be a flaw in
>the specification...

Looking in the 6/1/93 X3J16 working paper (section 13.4.3) I find no re-
striction preventing one from declaring a member operator= as `virtual'.

This section *does* say that operator= is "not inherited", but I believe
that statement to be entirely vague.  In any case, it does not directly
relate to the question of whether or not a member operator= may or may
not be declared virtual.  (Apparently, it can be.)

(Follow-ups to comp.std.c++ please.)

--

-- Ronald F. Guilmette, Sunnyvale, California -------------------------------
------ domain address: rfg@netcom.com ---------------------------------------
------ uucp address: ...!uunet!netcom.com!rfg -------------------------------