On 13/10/10 1:32 AM, Simen kjaeraas wrote:
Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> 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 <<).
Yeah, I also think it should at least be discouraged. I cannot see any
situations wherein allowing it would bring significant enough advantages
to warrant its use. That said, I am willing to accept there may be such
situations, and perhaps even that they should be allowed.
Is that how you feel about UFC in general?
I can't see how operator overloads should receive discriminatory
treatment with respect to their UFC-ability.
