Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: operator dot?
Message-ID: <71657@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 2 Apr 91 22:37:46 GMT
References: <70904@microsoft.UUCP> <4327@lupine.NCD.COM> <12036@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <4627@lupine.NCD.COM>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 19

In article <4627@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes:
|First off, the idea of overloading "." is horrible because "." is not
|an operator.
|
|Even if it were an operator (which it obviously isn't)  ....

ARM page 330:

"The following operators cannot be overloaded:
	. 	.*	::	?: "


Ron is attempting to use naming convention to argue his case.  He 
insists that . cannot be called an "operator" [even though that is how 
ARM and the working papers refer to it] and then uses his refusal to
accept the name "operator" as justification for not allowing it to
be overloaded.  I disagree that such attempts to argue via 
naming conventions have anything to do with whether or not operator
dot should be overloaded.