Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!spool2.mu.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!lth.se!newsuser
From: dag@control.lth.se (Dag Bruck)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: request for comments
Message-ID: <1991Jan23.064708.27115@lth.se>
Date: 23 Jan 91 06:47:08 GMT
References: <21@microsoft.UUCP> <35@microsoft.UUCP>
Sender: newsuser@lth.se (LTH network news server)
Organization: Department of Automatic Control, Lund, Sweden
Lines: 17

In article <35@microsoft.UUCP> jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) writes:
>In article <21@microsoft.UUCP> jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) writes:
>
>>"An operator function must either be a member function or take at least one
>>argument of class type or of a type derived from a class type."

I understand why you would not allow the user to redefine operators on
built-in types, e.g., "int + int".

Operator functions acting on enumerations -- in addition to classes --
would be useful, though.

Do we really need the restriction Jim quoted from the ARM?  If we
tried to redefine "int + int", wouldn't a "multiple definition of
operator+(int,int)" be enough to tell us that we did a no-no?

		-- Dag B.