Why does C++ require that user-defined conversion operator can only be non-static member? Why is it not allowed to use standalone functions as for other unary operators? Something like this:
operator bool (const std::string& s) { return !s.empty(); }
The one reason I can think of is to prevent implicit conversions being applied to the thing being cast. In your example, if you said:
bool( "foo" );
then "foo" would be implicitly converted to a string, which would then have the explicit bool conversion you provided applied to it.
This is not possible if the bool operator is a member function, as implicit conversions are not applied to *this. This greatly reduces the possibilities for ambiguity - ambiguities normally being seen as a "bad thing".
I guess that by keeping the conversion operator within the class you give the author of the class control of how it could be converted. As an implementer I would consider this an advantage.
There's a group of operators that have to be overloaded as non-static member functions: assignment, subscripting, function call, class member access, conversion functions.
I guess the standard's committee or Stroustrup simply felt it might be just too confusing if it was allowed to inject these very special behaviors to classes from outside.
I suppose the best way to get the answer would be to e-mail the author.
Implicit user-defined conversions are frowned upon anyway. Don't use them. Just pretend that they aren't there. Let alone thinking about newer ways to introduce them.
Anyway, I guess they aren't there because the way they are they can do enough unexpected things. Including a new header which introduces such a conversion for a class defined somewhere else might lead to even more confusing errors.