On 13/10/10 12:15 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Personally, I do _not_ think that overloaded operators should work with uniform
function syntax, if for no other reason than because it doesn't actually look
like the uniform function syntax does. There is no . operator directly involved.
And I don't see any real value in overloaded operators which aren't part of the
type. Unlike C++, I don't think that we have any operators where having an
overloaded operator function be a member function is a problem (the classic
operators with that problem being>> and<<).
- Jonathan M Davis
The way I see things, one of the main purposes of uniform function call
is so that you can extend structs/classes from 3rd party libraries (i.e.
someone else has defined a class, and you want to add an operator
without modifying the source file).
If I can add any other member function using UFC, I don't see why I
shouldn't be able to add operator overloads. It's just an unnecessary
inconsistency not to allow them.
