From -8020805058118264055
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,a052d2220d0eb455
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-07 03:38:00 PST
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!u-psud.fr!etca.fr!alofi!chris
From: chris@alofi.etca.fr (Christian Millour)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Name.Hiding.die.die.die
Date: 7 Mar 1995 11:16:17 GMT
Organization: Site Experimental en Hyperparallelisme - E.T.C.A. - FRANCE
Lines: 26
Sender: chris@alofi (Christian Millour)
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3jhfa1$f78@etca.etca.fr>
References: <3jfie5$ltl@panix3.panix.com> <D51HKq.1on@world.std.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: alofi.etca.fr

In article <D51HKq.1on@world.std.com>, tob@world.std.com (Tom O Breton) writes:
|> 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.

Can you provide a concrete example of an interesting use of the above 
construct ? 

--chris@etca.fr

|> -- 
|> tob@world.std.com
|> TomBreton@delphi.com: Author of The Burning Tower
|>