Re: Bogus name lookup by overloaded operators

["Martin v. Loewis" <martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>]

> Then, if gcc's implementation of the rules is correct, out of the following:

Thanks for your bug report. Or, actually, did you mean to report a
bug? If so, which one?

> DerefAddable is perfectly fine, but DerefMultipliable is useless
> _just because_ the symbol for multiplication (a binary op) is the same
> as for dereferencing (a unary op).  Is it me, or somebody in the ANSI
> committee was not feeling well, to put it mildly?
> 
> And speaking of the original example: Why care about ambiguity if none of
> the candidates comprising the ambiguity is a match?

If you question my line of reasoning, please discuss it in one of the
public C++ fora first, eg. comp.lang.c++.moderated, or
comp.std.c++. This list is not about the ISO C++ standard, it is about
the GNU Compiler Collection (specifically, bugs and other problems in
it).

As for the code snippet you've posted: That is perfectly correct, and
g++ accepts it.

Regards,
Martin