Home > Cannot Be > Why Some Operators Cannot Be Overloaded In C++

Why Some Operators Cannot Be Overloaded In C++

Contents

How to make my logo color look the same in Web & Print? would be too darn confusing if overloaded. Second, what is meant by 'take a name'? john Jul 22 '05 #3 P: n/a Ron Natalie Victor Bazarov wrote: 'delete' can be overloaded.

is overloaded as a unary operator which returns a reference to which operator. more stack exchange communities company blog Stack Exchange Inbox Reputation and Badges sign up log in tour help Tour Start here for a quick overview of the site Help Center Detailed Thus, binary operators take one explicit parameter and unary operators none. In fact, this list contains a few operators where it is rather questionable whether they should be overloadable (e.

Why Some Operators Cannot Be Overloaded In C++

He didn't and I don't know the reason but it seems like a reasonable decision to me. asked 7 years ago viewed 3379 times active 1 year ago Upcoming Events 2016 Community Moderator Election ends Nov 22 Linked 0 Why operator () [] -> = must be non-static An example illustrating overloading for the addition of a 2D mathematical vector type follows. The language comma operator has left to right precedence, the operator,() has function call precedence, so be aware that overloading the comma operator has many pitfalls.

Is "delete" here "delete operator" or "operator delete"? -- Alex Vinokur email: alex DOT vinokur AT gmail DOT com http://mathforum.org/library/view/10978.html http://sourceforge.net/users/alexvn Jul 22 '05 #17 P: n/a Victor Bazarov Alex Vinokur This behavior is generally acceptable for simple classes which only contain variables. What's the difference between defining operator=(A&, const B&) as a free function, and defining swap(A&, B&) as a free function? Describe Operator Overloading. Which Are The Operators That Cannot Be Overloaded It is evaluated by the compiler not at runtime ,so you can not overload it with your own runtime code.

class SomeClass {}; class HasArrowOverloaded { public: SomeClass* operator->(); }; class HasDotOverloaded { HasArrowOverloaded& operator &(); SomeClass& operator .(); // impossible in current C++, but // let's pretend it's OK void Yes No Additional feedback? 1500 characters remaining Submit Skip this Thank you! As opposed to, say, because some committee member slipped it into the standard while drunk ;-) –Steve Jessop Jul 15 '09 at 18:56 1 Why must it be a temporary? is then reapplied.

is then reapplied. Which Operator Can Replace The If Statement In The Program? Of special mention are the shift operators, << and >>. I recall that the operators were discussed there but there doesn't seem to be an electronic version available. name of a class member.operator-> works with a member on the rhs.

Which Operator Cannot Be Overloaded In C++ Using Friend Function

But the right hand side of operators . .* and :: are names of things, e.g. When overloaded, these operators get function call precedence, and this short circuit behavior is lost. Why Some Operators Cannot Be Overloaded In C++ Another common use of overloading the assignment operator is to declare the overload in the private part of the class and not define it. Which Operator Cannot Be Overloaded In C# Yes, a good opportunity for a language lawyer to demonstrate the knowledge of the difference between the delete operator and the operator delete, isn't it?

Usually, the committee made decisions for a reason. The pointer-to-member object access operator .* The scope operator :: The ternary operator ?: These four operators were considered to be too fundamental to be meddled with at all. By the way, Google "delete operator" in www.parashift.com (Marshall Cline's C++ FAQs Lite) gives http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...te+operator%22 -> "Your search - "delete operator" - did not match any documents" "Delete operator" is what Self assignment is generally a sign of a coding error, and thus for classes without raw pointers, this check is often omitted, as while the action is wasteful of cpu cycles, We Can Change The Basic Meaning Of An Operator In C++

ofcourse by seing the options we can say easily that options will need of 3 or 2 operands compulsory.so overloading does not occur Is This Answer Correct ? 0 Yes 5 Is This Answer Correct ? 3 Yes 0 No
Answer / balu i think b and d can't support overloading concept.. delete foo; the _overloaded_ function will be called. Even if it was pointer arithmetic relies on the correct value being returned by this operator since the compiler already knows how to calculate the correct value all overloading you would

Function call operator[edit] The function call operator, ( ), is generally overloaded to create objects which behave like functions, or for classes that have a primary operation. Choose The Appropriate Operator Function(s) For The Expression C = A + B. Although there was a proposal to allow overloading operator.() at some point there isn't strong support doing so (the main use case would be smart references). Well, what do you think?

overloading = and + will not automatically overload +=).

Probably never. The subscript operator is not limited to taking an integral index. For example cout << somtething can be achieved via defining a std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& lhs, Something const & rhs); function, and marking them as friend inside the class. Why Scope Resolution Operator Cannot Be Overloaded That is not to say that they are not important.

However, if "add" is public, then there is no need to use "friend" in that example. Delete CANNOT be loaded. Can I use that to take out what he owes me? When overloading these operators to work with streams the rules below should be followed: overload << and >> as friends (so that it can access the private variables with the stream

Whatever you call that ("syntactic stupidity" or "semantic brilliance") you still can do class RonDoesntLikeMeBooHoo { public: void operator delete(void*, size_t); }; and when you say RonDoesntLikeMeBooHoo *foo; ... operator+ might add two integer values. What do you call a relay that self-opens on power loss? They should behave as expected, new should return a pointer to a newly allocated object on the heap, delete should deallocate memory, ignoring a NULL argument.

operator+ might add two integer values. This desire might be unwise, against common practice, etc, but I'm not sure it's nonsensical or that you've (yet) made the case against it. –Steve Jessop Jul 15 '09 at 17:53 In general these operators are only overloaded for smart pointers, or classes which attempt to mimic the behavior of a raw pointer. There is a syntax shortcut using => for these situations.

Vector2D Vector2D::operator+(const Vector2D& right) { Vector2D result; result.set_x(x() + right.x()); result.set_y(y() + right.y()); return result; } It is good style to only overload these operators to perform their customary arithmetic operation.