Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:12994 comp.std.c++:846
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!infopiz!lupine!rfg
From: rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Overloaded operator dot
Message-ID: <5175@lupine.NCD.COM>
Date: 21 Apr 91 23:28:05 GMT
References: <41694@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Followup-To: comp.lang.c++
Organization: Network Computing Devices, Inc., Mt. View, CA
Lines: 33

In article <41694@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jbuck@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Joe Buck) writes:
>There seems to be some confusion among some people about just what
>the "overloaded operator dot" proposal is all about.  The proposal
>is intended (as Jim Adcock has argued very effectively) to make C++
>a more symmetrical language.

I agree that the language would be more symmetrical if it allowed either
*both*  of -> and . to be overloaded or *neither*.

>For those who say "dot is not an operator (Ron G.)", neither, in the sense you
>mean, is ->.  Ron, I seriously suggest that you read section 13.4.6 again.

I read it.  Now what?

The fact that Bjarne  and Jim Adcock and you all decided (incorrectly) to
call -> an operator does not have any particular influence upon me.  I'll
continue to call a spade a spade no matter how many others tell me it isn't.

>If you think operator.() is kludgy, you have some justification...

Gosh!  We are in agreement after all!

>...but you
>must then admit that operator->() is equally kludgy.  Either both or
>neither should be in the language.

Agreed.  I vote for neither.

-- 

// Ron ("Loose Cannon") Guilmette
// Internet: rfg@ncd.com      uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg
// New motto:  If it ain't broke, try using a bigger hammer.