469,926 Members | 1,512 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,926 developers. It's quick & easy.

Why can't '='(Assignment) operator be overloaded as friend function ?

Thanx in advance for the response...

I wanna enquire ( as it is asked many a times in Interviews that i
face as an Engg PostGraduate ) about the overloading capability of the
C++ Language.

Why can't the = (assignment) operator be overloaded as a friend
function ?
I work in VS 6.0 ( Win2000 ) as when i referred the MSDN documen'n it
said the following :

The operators [] , -> , = cannot be overloaded as static functions

from which i figured out that since 'friend' qualifier makes the
function a static function( i.e. a per-class member ), hence =
operator can't be overloaded as a friend function.But why is such
restrction there in the language in the first place ???
Jul 19 '05 #1
8 17345
> 1) If you do not define an assignment operator in your class
the compiler will create a default one for you.


Sorry I did not finish that one:
The created default operator definition
will result in an ambigous call whenever
you'll use the assignment

ex:
class A {

public:
A(int i) : _i(i) {}

friend A& operator=(A& lhs, const A& rhs);

private:
int i;
};
A& operator=(A& lhs, const A& rhs) {
lhs._i = rhs._i;
}

int main() {
A a(0), b(10);

a = b;
}
leads to the following error msg: (GCC 3.2, Linux Mandrake 9.0, Intel
Pentium):

See the *** line

launcher.C:11: `A& operator=(A&, const A&)' must be a nonstatic member
function
launcher.C:18: `A& operator=(A&, const A&)' must be a nonstatic member
function

launcher.C: In function `int main()':
launcher.C:25: ambiguous overload for `A& = A&' operator ***
launcher.C:6: candidates are: A& A::operator=(const A&)
launcher.C:18: A& operator=(A&, const A&)
launcher.C:18: A& operator=(A&, const A&)
--
Jan Rendek
INRIA, Lorraine
r e n d e k @ l o r i a . f r

Jul 19 '05 #2

"Nitin Bhardwaj" <ni*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:17**************************@posting.google.c om...
Thanx in advance for the response...

I wanna enquire ( as it is asked many a times in Interviews that i
face as an Engg PostGraduate ) about the overloading capability of the
C++ Language.

Why can't the = (assignment) operator be overloaded as a friend
function ?
I work in VS 6.0 ( Win2000 ) as when i referred the MSDN documen'n it
said the following :

The operators [] , -> , = cannot be overloaded as static functions

from which i figured out that since 'friend' qualifier makes the
function a static function( i.e. a per-class member ), hence =
operator can't be overloaded as a friend function.But why is such
restrction there in the language in the first place ???


Different rules apply to the functions which are called because they are
member functions or friend functions. For instance

class X // uses friend
{
public:
X(int); // note we can make an X from an int
friend bool operator<(const X&, const X&);
};

Given the above

X x;
if (1 < x)
...

is legal. The compiler will automatically construct an X object from the int
1. But given
class Y // uses member
{
public:
Y(int); // note we can make an Y from an int
bool operator<(const Y&) const;
};

then

Y y;
if (1 < y)
...

is not legal. With a member function you do not get the automatic conversion
of the first argument, the compiler will not construct a Y object from an
int in the expression 1 < y.

You can probably guess what is coming now. If you were able to declare
operator= as a friend like this

class X // uses friend
{
public:
X(int); // note we can make an X from an int
X& operator=(X&, const X&);
};

then stupid code like this

X x;
1 = x;

would be legal!

In short requiring that operator= be a member function ensures that what you
are assigning to really is a bona fide object, not some temporary
constructed by the compiler.

john
Jul 19 '05 #3
>
You can probably guess what is coming now. If you were able to declare
operator= as a friend like this

class X // uses friend
{
public:
X(int); // note we can make an X from an int
X& operator=(X&, const X&);
};


Of course I meant

friend X& operator=(X&, const X&);

john
Jul 19 '05 #4

"Nitin Bhardwaj" <ni*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:17**************************@posting.google.c om...
Why can't the = (assignment) operator be overloaded as a friend
function ?


The copy assignment operator is generated by the compiler if you don't define
one for a class. If you try to implement it as a non-member function, it doesn't
supress the generated one.
Jul 19 '05 #5
John Harrison <jo*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:be************@ID-196037.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Nitin Bhardwaj" <ni*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:17**************************@posting.google.c om...
Thanx in advance for the response...

I wanna enquire ( as it is asked many a times in Interviews that i
face as an Engg PostGraduate ) about the overloading capability of the
C++ Language.

Why can't the = (assignment) operator be overloaded as a friend
function ?
I work in VS 6.0 ( Win2000 ) as when i referred the MSDN documen'n it
said the following :

The operators [] , -> , = cannot be overloaded as static functions

from which i figured out that since 'friend' qualifier makes the
function a static function( i.e. a per-class member ), hence =
operator can't be overloaded as a friend function.But why is such
restrction there in the language in the first place ???
Different rules apply to the functions which are called because they are
member functions or friend functions. For instance

class X // uses friend
{
public:
X(int); // note we can make an X from an int
friend bool operator<(const X&, const X&);
};

Given the above

X x;
if (1 < x)
...

is legal. The compiler will automatically construct an X object from the

int 1. But given
class Y // uses member
{
public:
Y(int); // note we can make an Y from an int
bool operator<(const Y&) const;
};

then

Y y;
if (1 < y)
...

is not legal. With a member function you do not get the automatic conversion of the first argument, the compiler will not construct a Y object from an
int in the expression 1 < y.

You can probably guess what is coming now. If you were able to declare
operator= as a friend like this

class X // uses friend
{
public:
X(int); // note we can make an X from an int
X& operator=(X&, const X&);
};

then stupid code like this

X x;
1 = x;

would be legal!

In short requiring that operator= be a member function ensures that what you are assigning to really is a bona fide object, not some temporary
constructed by the compiler.
Wouldn't the above fail to compile? If the lhs is a temporary, it wouldn't
bind to the non-const-reference first parameter of the operator=.

Cheers,

Stuart.
john

Jul 19 '05 #6
Nitin Bhardwaj wrote:
...
Why can't the = (assignment) operator be overloaded as a friend
function ?
I work in VS 6.0 ( Win2000 ) as when i referred the MSDN documen'n it
said the following :

The operators [] , -> , = cannot be overloaded as static functions

from which i figured out that since 'friend' qualifier makes the
function a static function( i.e. a per-class member ), hence =
operator can't be overloaded as a friend function.But why is such
restrction there in the language in the first place ???


I guess the real question that was meant by the above wording is why
copy assignment operator cannot be overloaded by a standalone
(non-member) function.

The short answer is because the C++ standard does not allow it. The
longer answer should probably include the rationale that lead to this
restriction.

The rationale is as follows. Since the compiler always provides an
implicit declaration of copy assignment operator for a class that
doesn't declare one explicitly, later declaration of standalone copy
assignment operator would change the meaning of the assignment in the
middle of the translation unit:

class A {
/* no assignment operator explicitly declared */
};

void foo() {
A a, b;
a = b; // this invokes the implicitly declared assignment
}

A& operator =(A& lhs, const A& rhs);

void bar() {
A a, b;
a = b; // this invokes the user-declared assignment
}

Note that moving the definition of function 'bar' to some point above
the declaration of the assignment operator would change its meaning.
This behavior was considered to be potentially dangerous (and it is).

For this reason, the copy assignment operator is not permitted to be
overloaded by a standalone function in C++.

--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich
Brainbench C and C++ Programming MVP

Jul 19 '05 #7
Hello
The reason why a = assignment operator function can't be static is , when u
right that , u need to have a this pointer for reason one that u need to
elimite the possiblibity of self assignment
for this u need a this pointer and this pointer is not passed by default in
static fuinctions

WBr
Vijay

"Nitin Bhardwaj" <ni*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:17**************************@posting.google.c om...
Thanx in advance for the response...

I wanna enquire ( as it is asked many a times in Interviews that i
face as an Engg PostGraduate ) about the overloading capability of the
C++ Language.

Why can't the = (assignment) operator be overloaded as a friend
function ?
I work in VS 6.0 ( Win2000 ) as when i referred the MSDN documen'n it
said the following :

The operators [] , -> , = cannot be overloaded as static functions

from which i figured out that since 'friend' qualifier makes the
function a static function( i.e. a per-class member ), hence =
operator can't be overloaded as a friend function.But why is such
restrction there in the language in the first place ???

Jul 19 '05 #8
vijay wrote:
...
The reason why a = assignment operator function can't be static is , when u
right that , u need to have a this pointer for reason one that u need to
elimite the possiblibity of self assignment
for this u need a this pointer and this pointer is not passed by default in
static fuinctions
...


There is absolutely no need to have a 'this' pointer to eliminate
self-assignment. As long as you can obtain and compare addresses of
actual lhs and rhs objects, you can easily detect and eliminate
self-assignment.

It has nothing to do with 'this' pointer.

--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich
Brainbench C and C++ Programming MVP

Jul 19 '05 #9

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

6 posts views Thread by - Steve - | last post: by
8 posts views Thread by Clifton M. Bean | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by keit6736 | last post: by
9 posts views Thread by August1 | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by gugdias | last post: by
9 posts views Thread by sturlamolden | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.