On Friday 15 November 2002 10:31 am, Gennaro Prota wrote:
> I don't see the reason for the inclusion of operator & either. However
> if really that reason doesn't exist it is *veeeery* strange that this
> wasn't noticed during discussions about library issue 69:
>
> http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html#69
>
> The rationale section for that defect says:
>
> There is no need to explicitly consider a user-defined operator&
> because elements must be copyconstructible (23.1
> [lib.container.requirements] para 3) and copyconstructible (20.1.3
> [lib.copyconstructible]) specifies requirements for operator&.
>
> How is it possible for it to pass unnoticed?
>
> Genny.
Most likely, those present either didn't think it was a problem or didn't feel
strongly enough about the situation to speak up. There really aren't all that
many good uses for overloading operator&, and it can be a bit dangerous, so I
would expect some resistence in getting it removed from the CopyConstructible
requirements. Come to think of it, if not for Lambda's overloading of
operator&, I wouldn't really care about the issue :)
Doug
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
