can operators be inherited?

[puzzlecracker]

I don't recall whether operators, which are members of the class, are
intherited in subclasses?

thanks

 

[Victor Bazarov]

I don't recall whether operators, which are members of the class, are
intherited in subclasses?

If you meant to ask whether they were inherited, then, yes, they are,
just like any other function.

If you meant to ask if we thought you didn't recall, we don't know.

V

 

[Victor Bazarov]

If you meant to ask whether they were inherited, then, yes, they are,
just like any other function.

Correction: except for 'address of', I believe. And keep in mind that
each class has its own operator= that hides any inherited operator=.

V

 

[puzzlecracker]

Correction: except for 'address of', I believe. And keep in mind that
each class has its own operator= that hides any inherited operator=.

V

Thanks V,

What if I make operators virtual in the base class, would they still
be hidden - or according to the standard, operators cannot be
virtual?

Thanks agai,

 

[Victor Bazarov]

[..]
What if I make operators virtual in the base class, would they still
be hidden - or according to the standard, operators cannot be
virtual?

Hiding and overriding are two different concepts, but hiding can be
overcome by "using" declarations (see FAQ).

V

 

[James Kanze]

What if I make operators virtual in the base class, would they still
be hidden - or according to the standard, operators cannot be
virtual?

As far as the definition goes, a user defined operator is just a
function with a funny name, and it obeys all of the rules of a
function.

A more general comment, however: C++ operators are value
oriented, and values and polymorphism don't really mix very
well. So the presence of a virtual operator is *usually* a
symptom of a design error (although there are one or two
specific idioms, like letter/envelope where it makes sense).
Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.