On Dec 23, 7:11 am, "Fraser Ross" <a...@a.comwrote:
Quote:
struct B1 {
void f();
static void f(int);
int i;};
>
struct B2 {
void f(double);};
>
struct I1: B1 { };
struct I2: B1 { };
struct D: I1, I2, B2 {
using B1::f;
using B2::f;
void g() {
f(); // Ambiguous conversion of this
f(0); // Unambiguous (static)
f(0.0); // Unambiguous (only one B2)
int B1::* mpB1 = &D::i; // Unambiguous
int D::* mpD = &D::i; // Ambiguous conversion
>
}
};
>
In the second last statement there is surely ambiguity? It is not
possible to disambiguate i because of arguably a weakness in the
language.
A weakness or a feature? What are accessors employed for?
Quote:
>
In the last statement I don't think there is a conversion.
>
This is from the propsed resolution N1626.
>
Fraser.
>
The last two show up as ambiguous here. Which makes sense.
Does N1626 not propose a phrase that states such a situation is ill-
formed anyway?
