You must be registered to post a reply. Click here to register.
T O P I C R E V I E W
.oisyn
Posted - Sep 19 2006 : 08:43:03 AM
struct A
{
void foo();
void operator[](int) const { }
};
struct B : public A
{
using A::foo;
using A::operator[]; // #1
};
The keyword 'operator' in #1 shows with a red underline for some reason. Using the using declaration with regular functions works fine.
3 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
feline
Posted - Oct 02 2006 : 11:47:12 AM *ah* I ended up with a different idea, based on an example in More Effective C++ by Meyers, where "using" makes a private function from the base class public in the derived class.
this also makes sense.
.oisyn
Posted - Sep 26 2006 : 07:02:21 AM For the record ;) :
Well in my example it is pointless of course, but it's used to unhide base members if you're implementing the same function with a different signature in a derived class.
struct Base
{
void operator() (int);
};
struct Derived : public Base
{
using Base::operator(); // #1
void operator() (const char *); // #2
};
void foo()
{
Derived d;
d(123); // isn't possible without #1 as #2 hides all base members with the same name.
}
feline
Posted - Sep 23 2006 : 5:08:16 PM confirmed.
case=2674
i had to go and look that one up to work out what you were doing
