Terje Slettebų <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>From: "Terje Slettebų" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> As Daveed notes in the posting Rani gives a link to in the clc++m posting,
> if D is not derived from B, it has to choose between C -> C const -> B for
> the first function, and C -> D for the second function, which are just as
> good, _had it not been for the fact that "static no check(B const volatile
> &, int)" is not templated (as Rani points out in the posting)_, which makes
> C -> C const B the best choice, resulting in "no".
Seems to me that an ellipsis might be a slightly more-efficient means
to the same end here.
> Also, if C::operator B hadn't been const, the two conversion sequences for
> "static no check(B const volatile &, int)" would have been ambiguous.
Yup.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
