This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: pure virtual functions and name injection


Hello,

i saw this message here on the mailing list archive:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2006-03/msg00027.html

and followed the thread with great interest.

John Love-Jensen wrote:

> The two functions have different prototypes, I thought that the compiler was
able to differentiate them.


Different prototypes, but the same name. The name is what is causing the
error, not the rest of the signature.

Ok, i guess this is because of the same name, but why is it ok with the C++ standard?


operator++(int) and operator++() do have the same name, but they are considered
as different by a c++ compiler...


To avoid this kind of situation, I recommend using a different method name
for the method with the different signature.


>Then it compiles but there is a *link* error ! Can somebody explain me what
happens ?


You have not defined the a::foo function anywhere.  So there is a link
error.

Technically, a::foo() is not "defined" anywhere (i understand what you mean),
but it does not need to, since it is a pure virtual functions.
But a::foo() is "implemented" in class "d" (return 1), so when calling a::foo() the
compiler should redirect the call to the implementation d::foo(), no?


jérôme cornet


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]