Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!hubcap!grimlok
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: friend operator +(l,r) vs. operator +(r)
Message-ID: <11782@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 21 Nov 90 18:35:02 GMT
References: <11759@hubcap.clemson.edu> <1990Nov21.140621.4229@ssd.kodak.com>
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Lines: 33

randolph@tuna.ssd.kodak.com (Gary L. Randolph) writes:

>In article <11759@hubcap.clemson.edu> grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) writes:
 [ I asked about friend operator +() vs operator +() ]

>so user-defined conversion can be made on the non-foo 2.

>So, if a non-foo is to be used as the left operand, a friend is preferred.

>Note that friendship is only necessary for accessing a foo's private parts.
                                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Good one.

>If accessor functions were available, then the NONmember function is still
>required, but friendship is not.
 
So, the answer is that they are the same until a non-foo is the LHS of
the binary operator.  In my particular case, there are no conversions
allowed (both LHS, RHS must be declared to be foo's; if not the
operations are meaningless), so I could use either one, and expect the
same results (please correct me if I'm wrong).  My difficulties came
from never considering that some classes use/provide for conversions in
operations. 
 
Now, the related question:  Is one prefered over the other as a
stylistic point or for any other reason?
 
Thanks for the responses, I knew I could count on the net.

"I don't know about your brain, but mine is really...bossy."
Mike Percy                    grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu
ISD, Clemson University       mspercy@clemson.BITNET
(803)656-3780                 mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu