From 4929708044752876126 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,fe40a3780453cbe2 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: jaf3@ritz.cec.wustl.edu (John Andrew Fingerhut) Subject: Re: Virtual operator= Date: 1995/05/19 Message-ID: <3pj1mk$hr1@ritz.cec.wustl.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 102964203 references: organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO reply-to: sg3235@shelob.sbc.com newsgroups: comp.std.c++ In article , Robert Coie wrote: :Apologies to sites who receive two versions of this, previous post :cancelled due to egregious error in sample code. : :Given the note in verse 2 of 13.5.3, : :Note: for a derived class D with a base class B for which a virtual copy :assignment has been declared, the copy assignment operator in D does not :override B's virtual copy assignment operator. : :I would assume that: : :struct A { virtual A & operator=( const A & ); }; :struct B : A { B & operator=( const A & ); }; : :static void f( A & a ) :{ : A * a2 = new A; : a = *a2; // calls A::operator= ??? :} : :int main() :{ : B b; : f( b ); :} : :If this is the case, and B::operator= is not invoked in the commented :line, what is the point of virtual copy assignment operators? : :Robert Coie rac@intrigue.com :Implementor, Intrigue Corporation AppleLink: INTRIGUE I believe that the note means that your commented line will not invoke B::operator=( const B & ). It will still invoke B::operator= ( const A & ). -- Stephen Gevers sg3235@shelob.sbc.com