pure virtual functions and name injection
Mon Mar 6 21:28:00 GMT 2006
Thanks for the answer, but everything is not yet absolutely clear to me:
>> Why should I inject the "foo" name from a into b ?
> So that the compiler can find b::foo();
I agree, but what surprised me is that it is necessary. I have a long
experience with C++, and it is the first time that I do not
understand why it can't resolve a name. It is a use of "using" that I
was not aware of.
> Different prototypes, but the same name. The name is what is
> causing the error, not the rest of the signature.
But gcc internally use name mangling according to the prototype,
right ? So that I would have expect a real call to foo() to be
explicit enough to resolve.
> To avoid this kind of situation, I recommend using a different
> method name for the method with the different signature.
Agreed, but my problem here is to understand before :-)
>> 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.
Certainly, but in this case, I was rather expecting a compile error,
claiming that the pure virtual method had no body. On the contrary,
gcc has accepted it, so that I thought that it has found the right foo
More information about the Gcc-help