Topic: overloading and WP


Author: Stefan Glass <glasss@boat.bt.com>
Date: 1995/10/04
Raw View
In article <AKV.95Sep29014218@srl03.cacs.usl.edu> akv@cacs.usl.edu writes:

>> Check out the third declaration of function "f". Is that supposed to
>> be an error -- I mean the comment?
>>
>>   13.1  Overloadable declarations                            [over.load]
>>   ....
>>  --Two parameter declarations that differ only in their  default  argu-
>>     ments are equivalent.  [Example: consider the following:
>>               void f (int i, int j);
>>               void f (int i, int j = 99);         // Ok: redeclaration of f (int, int)
>>               void f (int i = 88);                // Ok: redeclaration of f (int, int)
>>               void f ();                          // Ok: overloaded declaration of f

And Andrew Koenig (ark@att.research.com) replied:

> It's a typo: the line
>
>                void f (int i = 88);
>
> should read
>
>                void f (int i = 88, j);

There's a typo in the correction. j isn't declared as an int, or as anything
for that matter. ( Or does this mean we're reintroducing the K&R C rule that
unspecified identifiers are ints %^)


Steve Glass
Canolfan Peirianneg Meddalwedd Caerdydd
BT




---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]





Author: Stefan Glass <glasss@boat.bt.com>
Date: 1995/10/05
Raw View
In article <AKV.95Sep29014218@srl03.cacs.usl.edu> akv@cacs.usl.edu writes:

>> Check out the third declaration of function "f". Is that supposed to
>> be an error -- I mean the comment?
>>
>>   13.1  Overloadable declarations                            [over.load]
>>   ....
>>  --Two parameter declarations that differ only in their  default  argu-
>>     ments are equivalent.  [Example: consider the following:
>>               void f (int i, int j);
>>               void f (int i, int j = 99);         // Ok: redeclaration of f (int, int)
>>               void f (int i = 88);                // Ok: redeclaration of f (int, int)
>>               void f ();                          // Ok: overloaded declaration of f

And Andrew Koenig (ark@att.research.com) replied:

> It's a typo: the line
>
>                void f (int i = 88);
>
> should read
>
>                void f (int i = 88, j);

There's a typo in the correction. j isn't declared as an int, or as anything
for that matter. ( Or does this mean we're reintroducing the K&R C rule that
unspecified identifiers are ints %^)


Steve Glass
Canolfan Peirianneg Meddalwedd Caerdydd
BT
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]





Author: ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Date: 1995/10/05
Raw View
In article <199510040919.DAA18472@ncar.ucar.EDU> Stefan Glass <glasss@boat.bt.com> writes:

> >                void f (int i = 88, j);

> There's a typo in the correction. j isn't declared as an int, or as anything
> for that matter. ( Or does this mean we're reintroducing the K&R C rule that
> unspecified identifiers are ints %^)

Sigh.  I meant

  void f(int i = 88, int j);

and that is what the draft actually says.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com


---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]





Author: akv@cacs.usl.edu
Date: 1995/09/29
Raw View
Question:

The following is an excerpt (sp?) from WP @ Cygnus.COM
(http://www.cygnus.com/~mrs/wp-draft.

Check out the third declaration of function "f". Is that supposed to
be a typo or an error that has been rectified -- I mean the comment?

Thanks.


  13.1  Overloadable declarations                            [over.load]
  ....
 --Two parameter declarations that differ only in their  default  argu-
    ments are equivalent.  [Example: consider the following:
              void f (int i, int j);
              void f (int i, int j = 99);         // Ok: redeclaration of f (int, int)
              void f (int i = 88);                // Ok: redeclaration of f (int, int)
              void f ();                          // Ok: overloaded declaration of f

--
Peace.... +<:-)

Anil
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]





Author: akv@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Anil Vijendran)
Date: 1995/09/29
Raw View
Question:

The following is an excerpt (sp?) from WP @ Cygnus.COM
(http://www.cygnus.com/~mrs/wp-draft.

Check out the third declaration of function "f". Is that supposed to
be an error -- I mean the comment?


  13.1  Overloadable declarations                            [over.load]
  ....
 --Two parameter declarations that differ only in their  default  argu-
    ments are equivalent.  [Example: consider the following:
              void f (int i, int j);
              void f (int i, int j = 99);         // Ok: redeclaration of f (int, int)
              void f (int i = 88);                // Ok: redeclaration of f (int, int)
              void f ();                          // Ok: overloaded declaration of f

--
Anil

___________________________________________________________________________
Anil K Vijendran                    USL Box 43007, Lafayette, LA 70504-3007
akv@cacs.usl.edu                                         (318) 232-5502 [H]

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]





Author: ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Date: 1995/09/30
Raw View
In article <AKV.95Sep29014218@srl03.cacs.usl.edu> akv@cacs.usl.edu writes:

> Check out the third declaration of function "f". Is that supposed to
> be an error -- I mean the comment?

>   13.1  Overloadable declarations                            [over.load]
>   ....
>  --Two parameter declarations that differ only in their  default  argu-
>     ments are equivalent.  [Example: consider the following:
>               void f (int i, int j);
>               void f (int i, int j = 99);         // Ok: redeclaration of f (int, int)
>               void f (int i = 88);                // Ok: redeclaration of f (int, int)
>               void f ();                          // Ok: overloaded declaration of f

It's a typo: the line

  void f (int i = 88);

should read

  void f (int i = 88, j);
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com


---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]