🚀 go-pugleaf

David Vandevoorde wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "RL" == Roman Lechtchinsky <wolfro@cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:
> [...]
> RL> class Base
> RL> {
> RL>  virtual void f(int);
> RL> };
> 
> RL> class Derived : Base
> RL> {
> RL> template<class T> void f(T);
> RL> };
> 
> RL> Is this legal? If so, will the template function f(int) override
> RL> Base::f(int)? If so, when will it be instantiated? And, last but not
> RL> least, which section of the DWP handles this case? Thanks in advance.
> 
> I believe this is legal and the instantiated member function is not
> virtual (i.e., no overriding), but my reason extrapolates the WPs
> somewhat. I base this on the fact that the `signature' of a template
> function includes the actual template arguments ([temp.over.link]
> 14.10.4/3 in the April CD), and that when [class.virtual] 10.3/2
> requires `same name', `name' really means template-id and not just
> template-name ([temp.names] 14.1).
> 

IMO, this means that f cannot be overridden in Derived:

class Derived : Base
{
 template<class T> void f(T);
 void f(int);
};

would be a specialization which means that f doesn't override as it is still 
a template ( [temp.over.spec] 14.10.5 ). Is this interpretation correct?

Bye

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