It sounds like you should be using a struct rather than a class… and then creating an implicit conversion operator, as well as various operators for addition etc. Here’s some sample code: public struct Velocity { private readonly double value; public Velocity(double value) { this.value = value; } public static implicit operator Velocity(double value) { … Read more
One may try to replace new and delete operators for a number of reasons, namely: To Detect Usage Errors: There are a number of ways in which incorrect usage of new and delete may lead to the dreaded beasts of Undefined Behavior & Memory leaks. Respective examples of each are: Using more than one delete … Read more
For this sort of hierarchy I would definitely follow the Scott Meyer’s Effective C++ advice and avoid having any concrete base classes. You appear to be doing this in any case. I would implement operator== as a free functions, probably friends, only for the concrete leaf-node class types. If the base class has to have … Read more
Short answer: I think your second assumption may be flawed. Equals() is the right way to check for semantic equality of two objects, not operator ==. Long answer: Overload resolution for operators is performed at compile time, not run time. Unless the compiler can definitively know the types of the objects it’s applying an operator … Read more
The basic question is “Do you want conversions to be performed on the left-hand side parameter of an operator?”. If yes, use a free function. If no, use a class member. For example, for operator+() for strings, we want conversions to be performed so we can say things like: string a = “bar”; string b … Read more
As far as I’m aware, Javascript (at least as it exists now) doesn’t support operator overloading. The best I can suggest is a class method for making new quota objects from several others. Here’s a quick example of what I mean: // define an example “class” var NumClass = function(value){ this.value = value; } NumClass.prototype.toInteger … Read more
The assignment operator is not required to be made virtual. The discussion below is about operator=, but it also applies to any operator overloading that takes in the type in question, and any function that takes in the type in question. The below discussion shows that the virtual keyword does not know about a parameter’s … Read more
One of the primary goal when overloading operator() is to create a functor. A functor acts just like a function, but it has the advantages that it is stateful, meaning it can keep data reflecting its state between calls. Here is a simple functor example : struct Accumulator { int counter = 0; int operator()(int … Read more
See this quote from Bjarne Stroustrup: Operator . (dot) could in principle be overloaded using the same technique as used for ->. However, doing so can lead to questions about whether an operation is meant for the object overloading . or an object referred to by . For example: class Y { public: void f(); … Read more
This is one of those frequently asked questions that have different approaches that are similar but not really the same. The three approaches differ in who you are declaring to be a friend of your function –and then on how you implement it. The extrovert Declare all instantiations of the template as friends. This is … Read more