Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!asylum!osc!tma
From: tma@osc.COM (Tim Atkins)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Assignments to reference variables [ and operator.() ]
Message-ID: <3833@osc.COM>
Date: 27 Sep 90 08:29:17 GMT
References: <8445@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> <57570@microsoft.UUCP> <1677@lupine.NCD.COM> <57684@microsoft.UUCP>
Reply-To: tma@osc.UUCP (Tim Atkins)
Organization: Versant Object Technology, Menlo Park, CA
Lines: 17


	As I see it there is a very pragmatic reason for not allowing
	operator . in C++.  Namely that it would be very difficult to
	distinquish normal use from the redefined use.  For instance:

	class schitzy {
	  	int a;
	    public:
		operator . () { /* do something different here */ }
		schitzy( schitzy& s){
			a = s.a;  // what do I really mean???
		}

	};

	I see no sane way to get back to the original operator . meaning
	in the above case.  Any takers?