Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Distinguishing lvalue/rvalue operator[]
Message-ID: <71040@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 4 Mar 91 21:16:25 GMT
References: <1991Mar3.202134.17812@mathcs.sjsu.edu>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 13

In article <1991Mar3.202134.17812@mathcs.sjsu.edu> horstman@mathcs.sjsu.edu (Cay Horstmann) writes:
|I repeat my call for two versions of this operator. William Miller had three
|arguments against it.
...
|Two comments. The problem I encountered could be solved by overloading
|operator. . <- the first is a dot operator, the second a sentence terminator.

Given that the ANSI-C++ committee is already considering adding overloaded
operator dot, and given that allowing overloaded operator dot would
remove a special case from the language, whereas distinguishing lvalue
and rvalue operator[] would add a special case to the language, would
you drop your request for lvalue/rvalue distinguished operator[] if
overloaded operator-dot were permitted?