Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!ulysses!allegra!fox
From: fox@allegra.att.com (David Fox)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: friend operator +(l,r) vs. operator +(r)
Message-ID: <FOX.90Nov28092933@papyrus.tempo.nj.att.com>
Date: 28 Nov 90 14:29:33 GMT
References: <11759@hubcap.clemson.edu> <1990Nov21.053431.22340@actrix.co.nz>
	<1990Nov22.230835.26713@clear.com> <rae.659682898@earth>
Sender: netnews@ulysses.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 13
In-reply-to: rae@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu's message of 27 Nov 90 05:14:58 GMT

In article <rae.659682898@earth> rae@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Reid Ellis) writes:

>Does anyone else think that
>
> operator+(const type1 &, const type2 &);
>
>should have a return type of type1 at all times?

Perhaps it is a cop out, but my life has been much easier since
I gave up operator+ entirely and switched to operator+=.  1/2 :-)
(And I give it a return type of "void"!)

David Fox