Simple: Operator overloading with heap objects

[sunil.thaha]

Sure nothing is stopping you from doing this.

But you probably wouldn't want to do this kind of overloading as you are giving a new meaning to the == operator on pointers. Many a times the users of your code would not think that you are comparing the values.

[jacek]

But you probably wouldn't want to do this kind of overloading as you are giving a new meaning to the == operator on pointers. Many a times the users of your code would not think that you are comparing the values.

That's why it's impossible in C++

[sunil.thaha]

That's why it's impossible in C++

You are absolutely right. And thank you spotting out our mistake. I will never forget this

BTW: did you try out what was said here. Or you got it at the first go ?

[jacek]

did you try out what was said here. Or you got it at the first go ?

I knew that it's impossible, but I've checked it just to be sure.

[fullmetalcoder]

I knew that it's impossible, but I've checked it just to be sure.

Just curious : what error was thrown by the compiler??? (don't tell me "check it on your own" because I just can't ATM...)

[jacek]

Just curious : what error was thrown by the compiler???

Something like: "at least one of operator arguments must be a class or an enum".

[wysota]

I wonder if the behaviour is simmilar for all popular compilers.

[jacek]

I wonder if the behaviour is simmilar for all popular compilers.

It should be, at least if they are C++ compilers:

An operator function shall either be a non-static member function or be a non-member function and have at least one parameter whose type is a class, a reference to a class, an enumeration, or a reference to an enumeration.