I have been reading more of the nullptr proposal and the DR's.

At the moment it seems as if the following call to f is ambiguous:

void f(std::nullptr_t);
void f(char*);

void g() { f(0); }

I would have expected the nullptr_t overload to be better just like it
is trivially better in

void g2() { f(nullptr); }

/MF

--
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@netlab.cs.rpi.edu]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]

I suppose I failed to ask any questions below so I'll try again:

On Feb 28, 3:38 am, Magnus F <ma...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
> I have been reading more of the nullptr proposal and the DR's.
>
> At the moment it seems as if the following call to f is ambiguous:
>
> void f(std::nullptr_t);
> void f(char*);
>
> void g() { f(0); }

Is my reading correct so that this should be ambiguous?
If so, why?


--
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@netlab.cs.rpi.edu]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]