I have a class called AString
. It is pretty basic:
class AString
{
public:
AString(const char *pSetString = NULL);
~AString();
bool
if (myString == "bar")
even if you get it to work, is very confusing for others. You are comparing a pointer to an object with a string literal. A much clearer way to get this working is dereference the pointer, and provide an overload like
bool operator==(const char* pSetString);
I think what you want is wrong since it obscures the type system of C++. myString
is a pointer to a AString
and not a AString
. Dont't try to hide the fact that it's a pointer. It's an entry point for ugly bugs and if you're coding in a team everyone else would be nothing but confused!
[ Original answer was wrong and thus corrected below ]
As pointed out by Oli Charlesworth, in a comment below, this is impossible.
You would need to define an operator like
bool operator==(const AString *as, const char *cs); // Note: C++ will not do that
but you cannot overload an operator unless one of its parameters is non-primitive type - and pointers (both pointers to AString and pointers to char) are primitive types.
No, there is not.
To overload operator==
, you must provide a user-defined type as one of the operands and a pointer (either AString*
or const char*
) does not qualify.
And when comparing two pointers, the compiler has a very adequate built-in operator==
, so it will not consider converting one of the arguments to a class type.
Not unless you wrap it in some sort of smart-pointer class, but that would make the semantics weird. What's wrong with if (*myString == "bar")
?