🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1jkjleINNfn9@gap.caltech.edu> brooke@cco.caltech.edu (Brooke Paul Anderson) writes:
>byu@sys.toronto.edu (Benjamin Yu) writes:
>
>
>>Here goes:
>>class elevator {
>>  int floor_selected;
>>  int floor_number;
>>public:
>>  elevator() { floor_selected = 0; floor_number = 0;} ;
>>  elevator(int x = 10, int y = 10) { floor_selected = x; floor_number = y; };
>>};
>
...
>
>If it gives you a warning, I'd say that's good enough.  Also, your
>overloaded function doesn't look ambiguous at all to me.  One takes two
>ints as arguments; the other takes no arguments.
>

The first definition requires no argument.  The second definition allows
0, 1, or 2 arguments.  Thus it is ambiguous with the first definition.

Ben