Guido Tack 20.3.2008 12:54: > Filip Konvička wrote: >> It seems that spec() has more arguments in LinBin than in Actor, so the >> compiler chokes. (Note that the function is not explicitly "virtual" in >> LinBin.) This is a "Level 4" warning 4263, which I used to have turned >> into error using, so I wonder whether this should be fixed in Gecode or >> not. The warning says that LinBin::spec() effectively hides >> Actor::spec() in LinBin (which might be intentional, of course, but the >> compiler probably doubts that). > > C4263 is one of the warnings that is off by default, that's why we > hadn't noticed yet. I'm not sure what we're going to do about it, the > code is perfectly legal C++, and it doesn't cause any problems. I > wouldn't want to rename the function just because of this warning. > Does it help to make LinBin::spec virtual itself? If so, that would > be an option. I doubt that. LinBin::spec() has different arguments and so does not override Actor::spec(), but it does hide it. The warning says that the design is dangerous, because when you have an instance of LinBin, it makes a difference whether you call spec() via LinBin or its base class. The question is whether you can make Actor::spec() non-virtual, which would IMO solve this. The rationale behind the warning is that since you have a 'virtual spec()' in base class, having 'spec()' (virtual or not) in a derived class suggests that you wish to override the base class's version and allow access to it via the virtual function call mechanism. I do agree though that this is quite pedantic...
Cheers, Filip _______________________________________________ Gecode users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users
