Re: operator= function

From:

"Victor Bazarov" <v.Abazarov@comAcast.net>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

Wed, 5 Dec 2007 16:52:41 -0500

Message-ID:

<fj76ja$cjs$1@news.datemas.de>

terminator wrote:

On Dec 4, 11:53 pm, "Victor Bazarov" <v.Abaza...@comAcast.net> wrote:

[..]
Imagine (and that will require you to think outside the box, I *am*
holding my breath for this one) that the OP wants to check the
success of the assignment operation. The OP could then define

    class A {
        bool operator=(const A& other);
    };

so that the assignment could be either checked

you will lose the ability to chain:

{
int a, b, c;
a=b=c;//ok
}{
A a, b, c;
a=b=c;//error
}

Chaining is not necessarily a good idea. Neither is the assignment
operator that can fail, of course. In that case it would probably
be best to have a member function that would return 'bool'.

I prefere a conversion operator to an intrinsic type ,or at least a
checker function like 'auto_ptr::get' or 'some_STL_container::empty'.

Well, as we discussed elsethread, conversion to an integral type may
not be the right choice, but conversion to 'void*' could work (like
it does for streams).

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask