From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13592 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2004 23:15:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 13585 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2004 23:15:31 -0000 Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 23:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040106231531.13584.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "boris at kolpackov dot net" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040106205426.13590.boris@kolpackov.net> References: <20040106205426.13590.boris@kolpackov.net> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/13590] unexpected overload resolution X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00577.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From boris at kolpackov dot net 2004-01-06 23:15 ------- Subject: Re: unexpected overload resolution > That's not a good example. The using directive for A::f and B::f create > an ambiguity, but this only needs to be detected when you try to call > one of the functions, i.e. during overload resolution, not when the > using directive is parsed. Agree. > However, you call f(int), and there is no ambiguity in this case. Doesn't the overload resolution happens when I call f(int) ? And according to what you just said it should be flagged as an error. And thus, I think, it's a very good example ;-) What I was trying to say is that when the same processes (overload resolution) happens in similar situations (ambiguilty in class inheritance vs ambiguilty in using directive) it would be nice if it had the same result (consistency). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13590