On Friday, 29 September 2017 at 02:34:08 UTC, DreadKyller wrote:
On Thursday, 28 September 2017 at 14:01:33 UTC, user1234 wrote:
[...]
I understand that, but because the operator isn't defined
normally for classes unless overloaded, then your statement
about this being an inconsistency on the concerns stated prior
about wrecking implementation of standard features. If & can't
be overloaded then the type of &object will always be a
pointer, you can't override the dereference operator of the
pointer itself as far as I can tell, overloading it on the
class doesn't overload the pointer, thus any standard
implementation that uses pointers to store an object would be
completely unaffected by overloading the dereference operator.
This I don't consider it an inconsistency.
[...]
+1 for forum issue.
