🚀 go-pugleaf

Anil Vijendran (s5vijen@portland.watson.ibm.com) wrote:
|> >>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 1995 16:12:58 GMT, fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus
|> Henderson) said:

|>     [deleted]

|>     Fergus> But no standard-conforming code defines `operator[] (int, int)'.
|>     Fergus> If Borland makes `a[ x, y ]' call `operator[] (int, int)' in
|>     Fergus> the case that `a' has an `operator[] (int, int)', it won't
|>     Fergus> affect any standard-conforming code.

|> But what if `a' has an operator[](int) too? In that case, code like
|> a[x, y] which would resolve to operator[](int) by the standard, should
|> be ambiguous. I assume Borland would spew an ambiguity diagnostic,
|> shouldn't it? 

It's really up to Borland to decide what to do in this case.  Once you
are using an extension, you cannot argue about what the standard says.

|> In a sense it does break some code... the users of the class that
|> defines the non-standard operator[](int, int) and the standard
|> operator[](int, int). 

Except that such code cannot legally exist, since there is no standard
operator[]( int , int ).
-- 
James Kanze           (+33) 88 14 49 00          email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs Bourgeois, 67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils en informatique industrielle--
                             --Beratung in industrieller Datenverarbeitung