From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-27 16:59:50
On Wednesday 27 June 2001 12:07, you wrote:
> > Consider this little tidbit of overload resolution:
> >
> > struct Foo {
> > template<typename T> Foo& operator=(const T&);
> > };
> >
> > struct Bar : public Foo {
> > template<typename T> Bar(T);
> > Bar& operator=(const Bar& other);
> > };
> >
> > Bar b;
> > b = 5;
> >
> > So what happens at b=5? Clearly the candidates are either:
> > 1) a call to Foo::operator=(T). This requires:
> > 2) a call to Bar::operator=(const Bar&)
>
> I believe that Foo::operator= will never be considered because its name is
> hidden by Bar::operator=.
>
> -Brad
I can't believe I missed that... It appears that the 'thin wrapper' approach
of 'function' is becoming very, very fat.
Doug