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;
}
A call
x + y
is translated by the C++ compiler into either of the following two calls (depending on whetherx
is of class type, and whether such a function exists):Member function
Free function
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:
And so on for other operators.