🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <AKV.95Sep29014218@srl03.cacs.usl.edu> akv@cacs.usl.edu writes:

>> Check out the third declaration of function "f". Is that supposed to
>> be an error -- I mean the comment?
>>
>>   13.1  Overloadable declarations                            [over.load]
>>   ....
>>  --Two parameter declarations that differ only in their  default  argu-
>>     ments are equivalent.  [Example: consider the following:
>>               void f (int i, int j);
>>               void f (int i, int j = 99);         // Ok: redeclaration of f (int, int)
>>               void f (int i = 88);                // Ok: redeclaration of f (int, int)
>>               void f ();                          // Ok: overloaded declaration of f

And Andrew Koenig (ark@att.research.com) replied:

> It's a typo: the line
>
>                void f (int i = 88);
>
> should read
> 
>                void f (int i = 88, j);

There's a typo in the correction. j isn't declared as an int, or as anything
for that matter. ( Or does this mean we're reintroducing the K&R C rule that
unspecified identifiers are ints %^)


Steve Glass
Canolfan Peirianneg Meddalwedd Caerdydd
BT
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]