Thread: How overload operator & (bitwise) versus & (address)?

It would have no parameters as a member function, or one parameter as a free function.

Code:

int* MyClass::operator &()
{
   return &value;
}
int MyClass::operator &(const MyClass &a)
{
   return value & a.value;
}
friend int* MyClass::operator &(const MyClass &a)
{
   return &a.value;
}
friend int MyClass::operator &(const MyClass &a, const MyClass &b)
{
   return a.value & b.value;
}

1 and 3 are address-of operators, 2 and 4 are bitwise and.
I'd recommend using 1 and 4 from the above.

More accurately:

Code:

int* MyClass::operator &()
{
   return &value;
}
int MyClass::operator &(const MyClass &a) const
{
   return value & a.value;
}
friend int* operator &(const MyClass &a)
{
   return &a.value;
}
friend int operator &(const MyClass &a, const MyClass &b)
{
   return a.value & b.value;
}

There should also be a const overload for the first one, methinks:

Code:

const int* MyClass::operator &() const
{
   return &value;
}

EDIT:
Ah, then that means that the third one should be:

Code:

friend const int* operator &(const MyClass &a)
{
   return &a.value;
}

with a possible non-const overload:

Code:

friend int* operator &(MyClass &a)
{
   return &a.value;
}

But I personally have never actually overloaded the address of operator, or the bitwise and operator for that matter, in my own code.

I have overloaded bitwise and, but overloading address-of is evil.

I have overloaded bitwise and

For a home brewed bignum library?

but overloading address-of is evil.

Yeah, I had to check that it was not one of the operators for which overloading was forbidden before I dared to state that it "would have no parameters as a member function, or one parameter as a free function".

Originally Posted by laserlight

For a home brewed bignum library?

No, I believe it was for a meta-programming experiment, but I can't remember it well.

Originally Posted by laserlight

For a home brewed bignum library?


Yeah, I had to check that it was not one of the operators for which overloading was forbidden before I dared to state that it "would have no parameters as a member function, or one parameter as a free function".

Yeah thanks for correcting the above, I knew I would have forgotten something, I was in a rush.

CComPtr overloads the address-of operator, then in order to use CComPtr in std containers you need to use CAdapt to effectively stop the overloading again. Translation, it certainly can be evil.