In c++ why we can overload `operator ->` and can't overload `operator .`

Question

In c++, why we can overload operator -> and can't overload operator .?
Similarly, why we can overload operator ->* and can't overload operator .*?
I will be appreciated if you can help me!

Have you read https://isocpp.org/blog/2016/02/a-bit-of-background-for-the-operator-dot-proposal-bjarne-stroustrup? — UKMonkey, Oct 25 '17 at 09:24
Because it'd be utter madness if we could. Just look at all the nastiness `operator&` causes. — StoryTeller - Unslander Monica, Oct 25 '17 at 09:29
@BasileStarynkevitch Sigh. Why does the standard specify so? — juanchopanza, Oct 25 '17 at 09:29
Because no one has made a coherent proposal for such feature. Try and see why it's hard. — n. m. could be an AI, Oct 25 '17 at 09:33

score 4 · Accepted Answer · edited Jun 20 '20 at 09:12

Stroustrup actually has this as an FAQ question on his website. To quote his answer:

Operator . (dot) could in principle be overloaded using the same technique as used for ->. However, doing so can lead to questions about whether an operation is meant for the object overloading . or an object referred to by .

This problem can be solved in several ways. At the time of standardization, it was not obvious which way would be best

(Note that Stroustup himself has since proposed allowing overloading of operator., as have others, so we may see it in a future version of the language.)

In c++ why we can overload `operator ->` and can't overload `operator .`

1 Answers1