Why isn’t the arrow operator in C++ just an alias of *.?

In c++, the * operator can be overloaded, such as with an iterator, but the arrow (->) (.*) operator does not work with classes that overload the * operator. I imagine that the preprocessor could easily replace all instances of -> with (*left).right, and that would make iterators nicer to implement. is there a practical reason for -> to be different, or is that just a peculiarity of the language/designers?

Overloading Operators – C++

I was experimenting with new overloaded operators, I have created one void operator and another one that returns something when it’s called:

Can I change operator precedence and associativity in C++?

As the title says, I find it useful to be able to overload operators. Is it possible to also change the way the operators are parsed by specifying the precedence and associativity of overridden operators?

Is Operator Overloading supported in C

When I read about the LCC (Windows) compiler, I found out it has the implementation for operator overloading.

What is the justification for Python’s power operator associating to the right?

I am writing code to parse mathematical expression strings, and noticed that the order in which chained power operators are evaluated in Python differs from the order in Excel.

Which are the fundamental stack manipulation operations?

I’m creating a stack oriented virtual machine, and so I started learning Forth for a general understanding about how it would work. Then I shortlisted the essential stack manipulation operations I would need to implement in my virtual machine:

Why aren’t user-defined operators more common? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers. Closed 3 years ago. Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions. One feature I miss in from functional languages is the idea that operators are […]

How to extract operators from the grammar productions for conflict resolution in LALR parser?

Is there some standardized or widely accepted algorithm for picking up operators in shift/reduce conflicts in LALR parser? The question is naive, my problem is not with implementing my solution, but implementing the solution is already widely used.

Why didn’t == operator string value comparison make it to Java?

Every competent Java programmer knows that you need to use String.equals() to compare a string, rather than == because == checks for reference equality.

Using Power of 2 numbers to represent types

Let’s say that we have some values, represented by power of 2: