From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin v. Loewis" To: NeilB@earthling.net Cc: weifeng.zhang@alcatel.be, patrick@mail.boxsoft.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: ambiguous overload ? Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:48:00 -0000 Message-id: <200007052033.WAA01467@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <3962FD7D.8FADE7E4@alcatel.be> <20000705025155.D3936@3eye.boxsoft.com> <39630D78.E9E018F6@alcatel.be> X-SW-Source: 2000-07/msg00076.html > I'm no expert, but I don't think the question is one of difficulty for > the compiler, but one of what is unambiguous in all cases (which can > get really hairy) and what promotes the coding style that Bjarne > wanted to promote at the time? In fact, the method case and the normal function case are the same. For methods, there is an additional implicit argument whose constness is declared in the end of the method signature; this additional argument is also considered in overload resolution. Regards, Martin