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

[Nick Sabalausky]

"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.