Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!rex!ames!pasteur!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck
From: jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: operator dot?
Message-ID: <12036@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 16 Mar 91 00:15:04 GMT
References: <70904@microsoft.UUCP> <4327@lupine.NCD.COM>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Lines: 14

In article <4327@lupine.NCD.COM>, rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes:
|> In article <70904@microsoft.UUCP> jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) writes:
|> >Does anyone know what happened to consideration of overloadable operator dot?
|> 
|> We can only hope that people realized that it was a horrible idea, and
|> that it then died a quiet and lonely death.

Well, Ron, educate me.  Why is it a horrible idea?  I claim that, for
many problems, a "smart reference" object is superior to a "smart pointer"
object.

--
Joe Buck
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu	 {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck