🚀 go-pugleaf

I   wrote:
>> You cannot call a non-static member function without specifying
>> an object.  The way you've written this, there is no way for B::L::f()
>> to set its "this" pointer.

Rob Stewart <stew@datalytics.com> wrote:
> That's nonsensical.  We're talking class declarations here.  
> B::L::f is a non-static member function of B::L, so it has a
> this pointer.

Although Rob is correct, what I meant to say was that there is
no way to set the "this" pointer for B::L::f()'s call to  A::L::f().
(In other words, when I said "its", I meant "A::L::f()'s", not "its
own".)  Unfortunately, I was still wrong.

Chris Hill <hillca@cs.purdue.edu> wrote:
> A::L::f requires that f is a static function.  Which A object do
> you expect the compiler to call f for?

This is what I meant in my first post.  However, it is wrong,
because A::L is a base class of B::L, and the syntax for a
method in a derived class to call a function in its base class
is  baseclassname::f().  When viewed in light of this, the call
to A::L::f() definitely has a valid "this" pointer.

Ranko Orlic <rorlic@eps.agfa.be> responded to Chris:
> According to me you did not understand the error message
> completely. The compiler incorrectly thinks that B::L::f is a
> static member function.

I don't think so.  I think the compiler made the same error that
I made.  It didn't recognize that B::L::f() was calling a function
in it's own base class, so it assumed that A::L::f() was a static
function call, and it barfed because A::L::f() was not declared
static.

Ranko goes on to say:
> The code IS perfectly legal. The compiler simply does not
> work properly.

Yes, I now agree with Rob and Ranko that this is a compiler
bug and not a coding error. 

Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you.

|  John Arisco   <arisco@tradewave.com>
|  TradeWave Corp, 3636 Executive Center Dr, #100, Austin, TX 78731
|  Voice: (512) 433-5313     Main: 433-5300     Fax: 433-5303