home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: vandevod@cs.rpi.edu (David Vandevoorde)
- Message-ID: <xsovikkwkg2.fsf@avs.cs.rpi.edu>
- X-Original-Date: 04 Mar 1996 17:41:01 -0500
- Path: in1.uu.net!bounce-back
- Date: 05 Mar 96 02:22:13 GMT
- Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Subject: Re: Hiding Overloaded Functions
- Organization: RPI Computer Science
- References: <4h9psh$fnv@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>
- In-Reply-To: Roman Lechtchinsky's message of 04 Mar 1996 10:20:46 PST
- X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.1
- X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++
- iQBFAgUBMTulZOEDnX0m9pzZAQHJzwF/ZPGqlithKf0kOs7jaemzIO53rgUGcw5m
- qdVYcp5R+rhfOE2LBj63ASYP3Sg5hmcg
- =5Fjs
-
- >>>>> "RL" == Roman Lechtchinsky <wolfro@cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:
- [...]
- RL> In the present standard as well as in the April draft, there
- RL> exists one rule which I don't like at all. Basically, the concept
- RL> is that if several overloaded functions are defined in a class A
- RL> and one of these functions is redefined in a derived class B this
- RL> function hides all functions inherited from A that have the same
- RL> name:
- [...]
-
- C++ look-up rules are already quite complicated. If this rule were
- relaxed the way you suggest, I imagine things would get even worse
- (I think you would have to define some kind of iteration between
- name look-up and overload resolution).
-
- Daveed
- ---
- [ To submit articles: try just posting with your news-reader.
- If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
- FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html
- Policy: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
- Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.
- ]
-