d1 + 4
works but 4 + d1
doesn't even though 4 can be converted implicitly to a GMan. Why aren't they equivalent?
struct GMan
{
int a, b;
GMan() : a(), b() {}
GMan(int _a) : a(_a), b() {}
GMan(int _a, int _b) : a(_a), b(_b) {}
GMan operator +(const GMan& _b)
{
GMan d;
d.a = this->a + _b.a;
d.b = this->b + _b.b;
return d;
}
};
int main()
{
GMan d1(1, 2), d(2);
GMan d3;
d3 = d1 + 4;
d3 = 4 + d1;
}
1) Only built-in operators can be overloaded. New operators can not be created. 2) Arity of the operators cannot be changed. 3) Precedence and associativity of the operators cannot be changed.
Yes, there is something called implicit operator overloading. According to MSDN, an implicit keyword is used to declare an implicit user-defined type conversion operator. In other words, this gives the power to your C# class, which can accepts any reasonably convertible data type without type casting.
No! If you want to overload an operator, the argument of your operator must contain at least one user-defined type. For example, in this case, you can overload minus for an integer and a class.
Java doesn't supports operator overloading because it's just a choice made by its creators who wanted to keep the language more simple. Every operator has a good meaning with its arithmetic operation it performs. Operator overloading allows you to do something extra than what for it is expected for.
A call x + y
is translated by the C++ compiler into either of the following two calls (depending on whether x
is of class type, and whether such a function exists):
Member function
x.operator +(y);
Free function
operator +(x, y);
Now C++ has a simple rule: no implicit conversion can happen before a member access operator (.
). That way, x
in the above code cannot undergo an implicit conversion in the first code, but it can in the second.
This rule makes sense: if x
could be converted implicitly in the first code above, the C++ compiler wouldn’t know any more which function to call (i.e. which class it belongs to) so it would have to search all existing classes for a matching member function. That would play havoc with C++’ type system and make the overloading rules even more complex and confusing.
This answer is correct. Those points then entail the canonical way of implementing such operators:
struct GMan
{
int a, b;
/* Side-note: these could be combined:
GMan():a(),b(){}
GMan(int _a):a(_a),b(){}
GMan(int _a, int _b):a(_a),b(_b){}
*/
GMan(int _a = 0, int _b = 0) : a(_a), b(_b){} // into this
// first implement the mutating operator
GMan& operator+=(const GMan& _b)
{
// the use of 'this' to access members
// is generally seen as noise
a += _b.a;
b += _b.b;
return *this;
}
};
// then use it to implement the non-mutating operator, as a free-function
// (always prefer free-functions over member-functions, for various reasons)
GMan operator+(GMan _a, const GMan& _b)
{
_a += b; // code re-use
return _a;
}
And so on for other operators.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With