🚀 go-pugleaf

David Vandevoorde wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "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).
> 

I don't see your point. The rules would be no more complicated than they are 
now. The only difference would be that overloaded functions which are hidden 
in derived classes now would be visible. The usual overload resolution could 
be used.

Bye

Roman
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your 
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu 
]