Why is this ambiguous?

[Tim H]

I understand why this is ambiguous, technically, but it seems,
frankly, retarded to consider 0 as ambiguous but 1 as not, just
because 0 == NULL.

Is there any way to defeat this that does not involve changing all
code that uses 0 as an argument to use bignum(0)?
#include <string>
using namespace std;

class bignum
{
public:
bignum(int val) {}#include <string>
using namespace std;

class bignum
{
public:
bignum(int val) {}
};

int
foo(bignum arg)
{
return 0;
}
int
foo(const string &arg)
{
return 0;
}

int
main()
{
foo("hello");
foo(1);
foo(0);

return 0;
}

};

int
foo(bignum arg)
{
return 0;
}
int
foo(const string &arg)
{
return 0;
}

int
main()
{
foo("hello");
foo(1);
foo(0);

return 0;
}

[Pete Becker]

On 2007-12-19 17:00:49 -0500, Tim H <th*****@gmail.comsaid:

I understand why this is ambiguous, technically, but it seems,
frankly, retarded to consider 0 as ambiguous but 1 as not, just
because 0 == NULL.

Please look up the definition of "retarded" so that you can use it
correctly. This usage is offensive to people who are retarded.

--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)

[Victor Bazarov]

Tim H wrote:

I understand why this is ambiguous, technically, but it seems,
frankly, retarded to consider 0 as ambiguous but 1 as not, just
because 0 == NULL.

Well, everybody is free to have their own impressions of anything.

Is there any way to defeat this that does not involve changing all
code that uses 0 as an argument to use bignum(0)?

No, and why should there be? Imagine the code without your 'bignum'
where no 'foo(1)' can exist. 'foo(0)' compiles OK (never mind that
it doesn't work, what if it does?) Now, imagine that by adding
an unrelated 'bignum' class and a function overload, you would be
able to change the behaviour of some unrelated code without even
a warning, if it were allowed.

You need to replace all 'foo(0)' with 'foo(bignum(0))', I guess.

>

#include <string>
using namespace std;

class bignum
{
public:
bignum(int val) {}#include <string>
using namespace std;

class bignum
{
public:
bignum(int val) {}
};

int
foo(bignum arg)
{
return 0;
}
int
foo(const string &arg)
{
return 0;
}

int
main()
{
foo("hello");
foo(1);
foo(0);

return 0;
}

};

int
foo(bignum arg)
{
return 0;
}
int
foo(const string &arg)
{
return 0;
}

int
main()
{
foo("hello");
foo(1);
foo(0);

return 0;
}

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[anon]

Pete Becker wrote:

On 2007-12-19 17:00:49 -0500, Tim H <th*****@gmail.comsaid:

>I understand why this is ambiguous, technically, but it seems,
frankly, retarded to consider 0 as ambiguous but 1 as not, just
because 0 == NULL.

Please look up the definition of "retarded" so that you can use it
correctly. This usage is offensive to people who are retarded.

How do you know?