* valid code?
@ 2008-09-10 1:40 Mike Stump
2008-09-10 10:26 ` Marco Manfredini
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Mike Stump @ 2008-09-10 1:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
So, was wondering, what do people think of:
class A {
virtual int B() { return 0; }
};
class B: A {
B() { }
};
valid code? I didn't find any prohibitions against it (yet) in the 98
language standard. I'm kinda wishing there is and was hoping someone
where could just cite it. :-) If not, I'll file a bug report for it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: valid code?
2008-09-10 1:40 valid code? Mike Stump
@ 2008-09-10 10:26 ` Marco Manfredini
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Marco Manfredini @ 2008-09-10 10:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
On Wednesday 10 September 2008, Mike Stump wrote:
> So, was wondering, what do people think of:
>
> class A {
> virtual int B() { return 0; }
> };
>
> class B: A {
> B() { }
> };
I'd reckon that 3.3.7 "Name Hiding" is applicable here. The declaration of B
introduces a name that hides int A::B(), changing it into a class name.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-09-10 10:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-09-10 1:40 valid code? Mike Stump
2008-09-10 10:26 ` Marco Manfredini
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).