Shame on me! I did saw 13.3.3.1/6 before posting my answer:
[...] When the parameter has a class type and the argument expression has
the same type, the implicit conversion sequence is an identity conversion.
[...]
It seems that overloading takes place before initialization. Initialization
David Abrahams wrote:
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm in love with the new is_convertible; I can now detect move-copy
types like auto_ptr! Could the old is_convertible do this?
The new is_convertible can't help you:
struct A { A(); A(A); };
void f(A);
const A a
f(a); // viable
Rani Sharoni wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm in love with the new is_convertible; I can now detect
move-copy types like auto_ptr! Could the old is_convertible do
this?
The new is_convertible can't help you:
struct A { A(); A(A); };
void f
Peter Dimov wrote:
Rani Sharoni wrote:
You can probably use a similar approach to implement yet another
is_class (not void, reference and doesn't have an implicit standard
conversion to bool).
I wonder whether int () const has an implicit standard conversion
to bool. ;-)
Good catch
Rani Sharoni wrote:
Peter Dimov wrote:
Rani Sharoni wrote:
You can probably use a similar approach to implement yet another
is_class (not void, reference and doesn't have an implicit standard
conversion to bool).
I wonder whether int () const has an implicit standard conversion
to bool
John Maddock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
012801c2c9eb$d07c4da0$b2e5193e@1016031671">news:012801c2c9eb$d07c4da0$b2e5193e@1016031671...
OK the new version of is_base_and_derived is checked in, along with
stricter
test cases, can someone who understands the implementation (I'm absolutely
Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Compiler: GNU C++ version 3.2 20020927 (prerelease)
I also tried the GCC 3.2.1, but without success. It compiles, but it
gives the wrong results.
Any ideas, or results from other compilers?
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:38:36 -, John Maddock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except it *doesn't work* !
John, unfortunately I have to turn off my computer now. I had just
hacked up a version that
Rani Sharoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b1bd2p$i97$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b1bd2p$i97$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:38:36 -, John Maddock
[EMAIL
John Maddock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
014601c2c79c$f53f7f00$8e3687d9@1016031671">news:014601c2c79c$f53f7f00$8e3687d9@1016031671...
Before changing the documentation please consider the following improved
implemetation that overcomes ambiguity and access control issues of the
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
John Maddock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, a class is it's own superclass/subclass, but IMO not it's own
base: so it is a bug in the implementation.
I'd like to suggest changing the
Paul Mensonides [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
000701c2b9fd$f56ef7f0$9d00a8c0@c161550b">news:000701c2b9fd$f56ef7f0$9d00a8c0@c161550b...
Is this well-formed:
struct X {
typedef void func_t(int);
func_t member;
};
void X::member(int) {
return;
}
What about:
struct X {
John Maddock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
010201c2a5c9$c1feb560$43e7193e@1016031671">news:010201c2a5c9$c1feb560$43e7193e@1016031671...
given the Standard's wording in 3.9/1:
... There are two kinds of types: fundamental types and compound types.
...
isn't the current implementation of
Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Rani Sharoni wrote:
In the same fashion - I think that if type is not cv void, not reference
and
not convertible to bool (via standard conversion) then it's class type.
Hm, could
14 matches
Mail list logo
