Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Resolving an Overloaded Function Call
Keywords: overloading
Message-ID: <54490@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 7 May 90 18:57:37 GMT
References: <35925@think.Think.COM> <1990May3.030546.1885@agate.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 29

In article <1990May3.030546.1885@agate.berkeley.edu> c60c-2ca@e260-2a (Andrew Choi) writes:
>In article <35925@think.Think.COM> simons@think.com (Joshua Simons) writes:
....
>>	print( 'a' ) ;
>>
>>exactly matches the overloading:
>>
>>	extern void print( char ) ;
....
>	No, this is not an error.  In C++ version 2.0, a character
>literal/variable is considered to match perfectly with a formal
>parameter of type `char'.  It will only considered to match
>an `int' (and higher derived type) if a perfect match is not found.
>
Right.  To make this even clearer, a char const 'a' is of type int in C, 
but is of type char in C++.  For example:

	sizeof('c') == sizeof(int)

in C, whereas

	sizeof('c') == sizeof(char) 

and

	sizeof(char) == 1 /* by definition */

in C++.   These definitions may not be recognized correctly by compilers
predating 2.0 compatibility.