Why these operators cant be overloaded?

[ambar.shome]

Hi,

As you know there are few operators in C++ which cant be overloaded.

They are:

.., .*, ::, ?: , new , delete , sizeof , typeid , static_casr ,
dynamic_cast , const_cast , reinterpret_cas t .

Theremust be some reason for this restriction for each of the
operators.

Does anyone know the exact reason for such restriction on each of them?

[erm]

you can overload operators new and delete

[ambar.shome]

I dont think "new" can be overloaded. "operator new" can be overloaded
but not "new" operator. Same for delete. Follow any traditional book
for confirmation.

[Ian]

am*********@gma il.com wrote:

I dont think "new" can be overloaded. "operator new" can be overloaded
but not "new" operator. Same for delete. Follow any traditional book
for confirmation.

And the difference is?

You can have your own class local operator new and your own global one.

Ian

[Serge Paccalin]

Le jeudi 11 août 2005 à 10:33, Ian a écrit dans comp.lang.c++*:

I dont think "new" can be overloaded. "operator new" can be overloaded
but not "new" operator. Same for delete. Follow any traditional book
for confirmation.

And the difference is?

The new operator first calls operator new() and then the constructor(s).

--
___________ 11/08/2005 10:37:58
_/ _ \_`_`_`_) Serge PACCALIN -- sp ad mailclub.net
\ \_L_) Il faut donc que les hommes commencent
-'(__) par n'être pas fanatiques pour mériter
_/___(_) la tolérance. -- Voltaire, 1763

[Risto Lankinen]

"Serge Paccalin" <[e-mail] .spam.net.inval id> wrote in message
news:11******** ********@cantto uchthis-127.0.0.1...

Le jeudi 11 août 2005 à 10:33, Ian a écrit dans comp.lang.c++ :

I dont think "new" can be overloaded. "operator new" can be overloaded
but not "new" operator. Same for delete. Follow any traditional book
for confirmation.

And the difference is?

The new operator first calls operator new() and then the constructor(s).

Very artificial distinction.

Or, similarly it could be argued that "->" operator cannot be overloaded,
but "operator->" can (because the "->" operator first calls "operator->"
and then the "->" operator).

- Risto -

[Maxim Yegorushkin]

Serge Paccalin wrote:

Le jeudi 11 août 2005 à 10:33, Ian a écrit dans comp.lang.c++ :

I dont think "new" can be overloaded. "operator new" can be overloaded
but not "new" operator. Same for delete. Follow any traditional book
for confirmation.

And the difference is?

The new operator first calls operator new() and then the constructor(s).

There are new statement and operator new (the same applies to delete).
new statement is a language construct that calls operator new and then
an object constructor. new statement can not be redefined or overloaded
(macro aside), but operator new can be overloaded.

The same name for language construct and operator has lead to much
confusion.

[ambar.shome]

Hi,

I think you all are not following my original question. Once again
please follow my query given below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you know there are few operators in C++ which cant be overloaded.
They are:
.., .*, ::, ?: , new , delete , sizeof , typeid , static_casr ,
dynamic_cast , const_cast , reinterpret_cas t .
Theremust be some reason for this restriction for each of the
operators.
Does anyone know the exact reason for such restriction on each of them?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am desperately looking for answer . Will anybody help me on this?

[Risto Lankinen]

<am*********@gm ail.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ o13g2000cwo.goo glegroups.com.. .

As you know there are few operators in C++ which cant be overloaded.

., .*, ::, ?: , new , delete , sizeof , typeid , static_casr ,
dynamic_cast , const_cast , reinterpret_cas t .

Theremust be some reason for this restriction for each of the
operators.

Does anyone know the exact reason for such restriction on each of them?

http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_f...l#overload-dot

- Risto -

[Pete Becker]

erm wrote:

you can overload operators new and delete

Well, yes and no. You can overload operator new and operator delete, but
you cannot overload the new and delete operators, which was what the
original question was about.

operator new and operator delete are functions: void *operator
new(size_t) and void operator delete(void*) in their simplest forms.
When you say 'new int' you're using the new operator to create an int on
the heap; it calls operator new to get the memory, then constructs the
value as appropriate for the type. Similarly, when you say 'delete ptr'
you're using the delete operator, which destroys the value and then
calls operator delete to release the memory.

--

Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)