From -3175841939767654182
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,b30f2f66efafff01
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-08-12 03:29:55 PST
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!news.onramp.net!convex!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!msuinfo!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!news
From: maxtal@physics.su.OZ.AU (John Max Skaller)
Subject: Re: Question about overloading
Message-ID: <CuDBL3.C0B@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
Sender: news@ucc.su.OZ.AU
Nntp-Posting-Host: physics.su.oz.au
Organization: School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia
References: <31ti6g$65i@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 11:22:14 GMT
Lines: 27

In article <31ti6g$65i@agate.berkeley.edu> dougal@homer.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Doug Hauge) writes:
>
>   Should the following overloading be allowed?
>
>class A {
>   static void f();
>   void f() const;
>};

	Dont know but a _call_ to f() is not allowed here.
Its not allowed in the case:

	class A {
		static void f();
		void f(int);
	};

either: name binding and selection of candidates for
overload resolution is done first and result must not
be a set containing both static and non-static functions.
(San Diego resolution)

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
	Maxtal Pty Ltd,		    
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21 
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA	    Phone: 61-2-566-2189