overloading and WP

Thread View: comp.std.c++

4 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

4 total messages Started by Anil Vijendran Fri, 29 Sep 1995 16:24

#2071

Author: Anil Vijendran
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 16:24

30 lines
1619 bytes

Question:

The following is an excerpt (sp?) from WP @ Cygnus.COM
(http://www.cygnus.com/~mrs/wp-draft. 

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

--
Anil

___________________________________________________________________________
Anil K Vijendran                    USL Box 43007, Lafayette, LA 70504-3007
akv@cacs.usl.edu                                         (318) 232-5502 [H]

---
[ 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. ]

Re: overloading and WP

#2081

Author: Andrew Koenig
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 19:09

31 lines
1505 bytes

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

It's a typo: the line

		void f (int i = 88);

should read

		void f (int i = 88, j);
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@research.att.com


---
[ 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. ]

Re: overloading and WP

#2109

Author: Andrew Koenig
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 08:16

23 lines
1181 bytes

In article <199510040919.DAA18472@ncar.ucar.EDU> Stefan Glass <glasss@boat.bt.com> writes:

> >                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 %^)

Sigh.  I meant

		void f(int i = 88, int j);

and that is what the draft actually says.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@research.att.com


---
[ 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. ]

Re: overloading and WP

#2117

Author: Stefan Glass
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 08:29

36 lines
1869 bytes

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. ]

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads