"Overloaded" method vanished

[Steffen]

Hi,

I stumbled across the following error

foo.cc: In function `int main()':
foo.cc:15: error: no matching function for call to `Bar::foo(int)'
foo.cc:9: error: candidates are: void Bar::foo(int, int)

where foo.cc is

struct Foo
{
int i ;
void foo(int i) { this->i = i ; }
} ;

struct Bar : public Foo
{
void foo(int j, int k) { this->i = j * k ; }
} ;

int main()
{
Bar bar ;
bar.foo(2) ;
bar.foo(3, 4) ;
return 0 ;
}

So Foo::foo(int) is no longer accessible in the derived class Bar. --
Though it is accessible if Bar has no foo(int, int) method. -- Is this
covered by the standard, and if so why?

thx & rgds, Steffen

g++ -v

Reading specs from
/usr/local/gcc-3.3.1/lib/gcc-lib/alphaev68-dec-osf5.1/3.3.1/specs
Configured with: ../gcc-3.3.1/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-3.3.1
--disable-shared
Thread model: single
gcc version 3.3.1

[Karl Heinz Buchegger]

Steffen wrote:

Hi,
[snip]
int main()
{
Bar bar ;
bar.foo(2) ;
bar.foo(3, 4) ;
return 0 ;
}

So Foo::foo(int) is no longer accessible in the derived class Bar. --
Though it is accessible if Bar has no foo(int, int) method. -- Is this
covered by the standard, and if so why?

Yes. It is called 'function hiding'.
Please serach the groups archive at www.google.com for 'function hiding'.

--
Karl Heinz Buchegger
kb******@gascad.at

[Steffen]

Thx for the quick answer! -- Though I have to get used to the idea
behind.

[Alex Vinokur]

"Steffen" <st****@gmx.de> wrote in message news:11**********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...

Hi,

I stumbled across the following error

foo.cc: In function `int main()':
foo.cc:15: error: no matching function for call to `Bar::foo(int)'
foo.cc:9: error: candidates are: void Bar::foo(int, int)

where foo.cc is

struct Foo
{
int i ;
void foo(int i) { this->i = i ; }
} ;

struct Bar : public Foo
{ using Foo::foo;
// C++ FAQ LITE, http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...ce.html#faq-23, Question 23.7
void foo(int j, int k) { this->i = j * k ; }
} ;

int main()
{
Bar bar ;
bar.foo(2) ;
bar.foo(3, 4) ;
return 0 ;
}

So Foo::foo(int) is no longer accessible in the derived class Bar. --
Though it is accessible if Bar has no foo(int, int) method. -- Is this
covered by the standard, and if so why?

thx & rgds, Steffen

g++ -v

Reading specs from
/usr/local/gcc-3.3.1/lib/gcc-lib/alphaev68-dec-osf5.1/3.3.1/specs
Configured with: ../gcc-3.3.1/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-3.3.1
--disable-shared
Thread model: single
gcc version 3.3.1

--
Alex Vinokur
email: alex DOT vinokur AT gmail DOT com
http://mathforum.org/library/view/10978.html
http://sourceforge.net/users/alexvn

[Rajan]

Hi Steffen
Also go through the book " Effective C++ by Scott Mayer " .It will
explain you why this behaviour is there in standred .

Regards
Raj

[Default User]

Steffen wrote:

Thx for the quick answer! -- Though I have to get used to the idea
behind.

Please quote a relevant portion of the previous message in your
replies. To do so from Google, click "show options" and select the
Reply shown in the expanded header.

Brian

[Default User]

Rajan wrote:

Hi Steffen
Also go through the book " Effective C++ by Scott Mayer " .It will
explain you why this behaviour is there in standred .

Please quote a relevant portion of the previous message in your
replies. To do so from Google, click "show options" and select the
Reply shown in the expanded header.

Brian

[Victor Bazarov]

Default User wrote:

Steffen wrote:

Thx for the quick answer! -- Though I have to get used to the idea
behind.

Please quote a relevant portion of the previous message in your
replies. To do so from Google, click "show options" and select the
Reply shown in the expanded header.

What would be the "relevant portion"? The two timestamps from the
original post and the reply? Try limit your requests about quoting
of relevant portions to something that actually makes sense, will you?

V

[Default User]

Victor Bazarov wrote:

Default User wrote:

Steffen wrote:

Thx for the quick answer! -- Though I have to get used to the idea
behind.
Please quote a relevant portion of the previous message in your
replies. To do so from Google, click "show options" and select the
Reply shown in the expanded header.

What would be the "relevant portion"? The two timestamps from the
original post and the reply?

At the very least, the attribution, so that we know which "quick
answer" the person is talking about.

Try limit your requests about quoting
of relevant portions to something that actually makes sense, will you?

It's then a good thing that this is one of those cases.
With the spreading use of Google, people need to be trained to use the
proper Reply. Nitpicking my attempts to do so sure doesn't help.

Brian

[Victor Bazarov]

Default User wrote:

[...]
With the spreading use of Google, people need to be trained to use the
proper Reply. Nitpicking my attempts to do so sure doesn't help.

Perhaps you should start another forum, like comp.google.howto and give
your advice there? Here it looks more and more like the noise we want to
avoid. I'll happily redirect people to such newsgroup (and we can add
a mention of it in the FAQ) if it existed... Or maybe you could appeal to
Google so that they fix their reply mechanism... In any case, posting
here about any _particular_ news reading software and how to use it is
just like posting about any particular compiler and its command-line
switches, don't you think?

V

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Victor Bazarov:

Default User wrote:

[...]
With the spreading use of Google, people need to be trained to use the
proper Reply. Nitpicking my attempts to do so sure doesn't help.

...
Here it looks more and more like the noise we want to avoid.

Ah, I think you're the one making the noise now. ;-)

Concise guidance on posting is very common and generally works well
as long as people don't start long subthreads about it.

Some people even put such guidance in their signatures!

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Victor Bazarov]

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

* Victor Bazarov:

Default User wrote:

[...]
With the spreading use of Google, people need to be trained to use the
proper Reply. Nitpicking my attempts to do so sure doesn't help.
...
Here it looks more and more like the noise we want to avoid.

Ah, I think you're the one making the noise now. ;-)

Concise guidance on posting is very common and generally works well
as long as people don't start long subthreads about it.

This is a good one! :-)
Some people even put such guidance in their signatures!

I've heard of that. Now, if I only could find an example to follow...

[Default User]

Victor Bazarov wrote:

Default User wrote:

[...]
With the spreading use of Google, people need to be trained to use the
proper Reply. Nitpicking my attempts to do so sure doesn't help.
Perhaps you should start another forum, like comp.google.howto and give
your advice there?

That's ridiculous. First you claim that my comments were inappropriate
to the particular post, now that they aren't welcome period. Well, you
are entitled to your opinion, but I won't pay any attention to it. It's
a dumb one.
Or maybe you could appeal to
Google so that they fix their reply mechanism...
Believe me, I've tried, along with many others. They are unresponsive.
In any case, posting
here about any _particular_ news reading software and how to use it is
just like posting about any particular compiler and its command-line
switches, don't you think?

No, I do not. Posting in a proper manner is important to effective
communications in this newsgroup. That includes things like proper
quoting. Now, I recognize that many people just don't know that Google
CAN post properly, so I try to help. In some groups, Google is now the
most common source of posts, it is becoming very popular in "emerging"
areas such as India and China. The problem won't go away by ignoring
it.

I also have a personal motive. Due to the problems with our newsfeed, I
have forced to use Google for posting. The flood of new Google users
and the problems from that have some people talking about killfiling
the whole shebang.

Brian