Re: Total Newbie Backward Compat Question

On Mar 12, 1:31=A0pm, Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Mar 10, 8:15 am, "Chris ( Val )" <chris...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 10, 11:05 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > Crazy c said:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > Are you saying that if I use std::cout, I do not have to overload
> > > > operator <<?
>
> > > If you want std::cout to be able to display objects of your own
defini=
tion
> > > (as opposed to vanilla types such as int, double, etc), then you
need =
to
> > > overload << within your class.
>
> > The overload "within" the class.
>
> Yes and No.

What part of the above comment "does not necessarily need to be"
contradicts your "Yes and No" comment? :)

[snip]

Thanks, but I'm well aware of this idiom, and I have used it many
times in the past. I even thought of posting such an example in my
first post, but decided it wasn't warranted for the discussion.

> More about this athttp://www.gotw.ca/gotw/004.htm

That is an excellent resource, and I believe I have read
that article or something similar a long time ago.

--
Chris Val