--- Comment #4 from yebblies <> 2012-02-07 13:47:24 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> >
> This seems to partially overlap Issue 4647. I agree with your implementation,
> although Kenji seems to think otherwise in 4647. I don't know what Walter
> thinks though, the pull for 4647 doesn't fix the "ambiguous calls allowed" 
> part
> of my bug report even though it was closed as fixed. Your pull fixes the
> "ambigous" part.
> I'm just trying to make sure we're all on the same page. :)

I'm pretty sure the call should be disallowed, it is ambiguous.  Places like
this where behavior depends on order of declarations are generally bugs.

Note that my patch still needs some work.

Configure issuemail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to