From -994401622673212809 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,a052d2220d0eb455 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-06 15:15:37 PST Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!world!tob From: tob@world.std.com (Tom O Breton) Subject: Re: Name.Hiding.die.die.die Message-ID: Reply-To: tob@world.std.com Organization: BREnterprises References: <3jfie5$ltl@panix3.panix.com> Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 22:10:01 GMT X-Posted-By: My own casual posting program Lines: 36 tmurphy@panix.com (Timothy Murphy) writes: > Please rip this apart, both with your editor and your words; I am > very interested in feedback, particularly from members of the standards > committee. > I was very disappointed to read in [DS 13.1.1] that the name-hiding > rule is still with us. I used to have mixed feelings about name-hiding, but now I think it's a good idea. I once felt that since an overloaded function of the same name is semantically an entirely _different_ function, that name-hiding amounted to cross-talk upon accident of having the same name. But now I feel that overloading where one overloaded version might "capture" arguments intended for another makes it too dangerous: base::foo( short i ); derived::foo( long i ); foo( 100 ); //Should base capture this? I say it shouldn't be //risked. I could be persuaded that it's only neccessary to hide functions with the same number of arguments, including all combinations of default arguments, though the rule seems a bit complex and doesn't accomplish anything that some editing can't, Tom -- tob@world.std.com TomBreton@delphi.com: Author of The Burning Tower