Rationale for not allowing overload of && and ||?

[Joe Gauterin]

Brian Price Wrote:

> Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
> 
> > "Brian Price" <blprice61 at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> > news:g3brj5$2370$1 at digitalmars.com...
> > > Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Joe Gauterin" <Joseph.Gauterin at googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:g3bpl0$1ujc$1 at digitalmars.com...
> > >> > What is the rationale for not allowing overloading of && and ||? It 
> > >> > seems
> > >> > to me that, with the 'lazy' keyword, D is one of the few languages 
> > >> > where
> > >> > overloaded && and || can correctly implement short circuited 
> > >> > evaluation.
> > >>
> > >> If I'm not mistaken, I think you can define an "implicit conversion from
> > >> this class (or struct?) to ...".  So I assume the reason is, defining an
> > >> implicit conversion to bool would effectively eliminate all (legitamate)
> > >> reasons to overload && and ||. The only things that overloading && and ||
> > >> could do that couldn't be accomplished (with better compatability across
> > >> various types) would be things that would break the intended meaning of 
> > >> &&
> > >> and ||. Buy that's considered bad style when overloading operators 
> > >> anyway.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Bayesian and fuzzy logic both assign non boolean meanings to the 
> > > operations and/or.  If you cannot overload && and || you cannot express 
> > > such logic operations in a concise recognizable form.
> > 
> > & and |? 
> > 
> > 
> That is, of course, the workaround.  However bitwise-and does not mean logical and, nor bitwise-or mean logical or, so you are forced to use a syntax that is semantically incorrect.  That is, if you want the convenience of using operators.
> 
> Brian
> 

So there's no real reason? Presumably it's just a hangover from when D didn't have the 'lazy' keyword or an aversion to overloading them due to the mess C++ makes of it.