On Saturday, 13 October 2012 at 22:34:19 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
OK, before this thread devolves into a shouting match, I'd like
to
understand what was the rationale behind this restriction. What
were the
reasons behind not allowing a non-member function to overload an
operator? What are the pros and cons considered at the time,
and how do
they weigh now? Or was it just a matter of not being
implemented because
nobody thought about it at the time?
T
It likely was not implemented rather than disallowed. The only
mentioned reason is to allow writing operator overloading methods
outside type scope - just because somebody (currently two people)
consider it logical to broaden UFCS usage. This doesn't solve ay
practical issue.
