This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: ambiguous overload ?

To: NeilB at earthling dot net
Subject: Re: ambiguous overload ?
From: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 22:33:42 +0200
CC: weifeng dot zhang at alcatel dot be, patrick at mail dot boxsoft dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <3962FD7D.8FADE7E4@alcatel.be> <20000705025155.D3936@3eye.boxsoft.com> <39630D78.E9E018F6@alcatel.be> <E139pbl-00060B-00@monkey.rosenet.ne.jp>

> I'm no expert, but I don't think the question is one of difficulty for
> the compiler, but one of what is unambiguous in all cases (which can
> get really hairy) and what promotes the coding style that Bjarne
> wanted to promote at the time?

In fact, the method case and the normal function case are the
same. For methods, there is an additional implicit argument whose
constness is declared in the end of the method signature; this
additional argument is also considered in overload resolution.

Regards,
Martin

References:
- ambiguous overload ?
  - From: Zhang Wei Feng
- Re: ambiguous overload ?
  - From: sidster
- Re: ambiguous overload ?
  - From: Zhang Wei Feng
- Re: ambiguous overload ?
  - From: Neil Booth

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