c++ - Why is overloading operator&() prohibited for classes stored in STL containers?

Question

Suddenly in this article ("problem 2") I see a statement that C++ Standard prohibits using STL containers for storing elemants of class if that class has an overloaded operator&().

Having overloaded operator&() can indeed be problematic, but looks like a default "address-of" operator can be used easily through a set of dirty-looking casts that are used in boost::addressof() and are believed to be portable and standard-compilant.

Why is having an overloaded operator&() prohibited for classes stored in STL containers while the boost::addressof() workaround exists?

Answer 1

Without having looked at the links, I suppose the tricks in boost::addressof() were invented well after the requirement to not to overload unary prefix & for objects to be held in containers of the std lib.

I vaguely remember Pete Becker (then working for Dinkumware on their standard library implementation) once stating that everyone who overloads the address-of operator and expects their standard library implementation still to work should be punished by having to implement a standard library which does this.