kanze@us-es.sel.de (James Kanze) writes:

>rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:
>
>|> A certain group of folks have been moaning about the inability to overload
>|> operator. for a long time.
>
>|> No matter how many times this (ridiculous?) subject comes up, the basic
>|> fact that `.' is *not* an operator (and never has been) seems to be con-
>|> tinuously ignored by the proponents of this silly idea.
>
>Well, the ARM specifically says: "The following OPERATORS cannot be
>overloaded: [...] ."  So apparently the authors of the ARM thought of
>it as an operator.
>
>I suspect that they probably got this erroneous idea from the C
>standard [...]

Clearly whether `.' is an operator or not is a matter of definition.
Equally clearly, the vast majority of C/C++ literature, be it the C++PL,
the ARM, the C standard, or even the Turbo C++ Programmers Guide
(pages 21, 23, 66, 75, 77, 124, and 367) refer to `.' as an operator.
So why don't we stop arguing about whether `.' is an operator or
not, and ask why it can't be overloaded?

--
Fergus Henderson                     fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU