Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!sgi!shinobu!odin!yellowsub!lord
From: lord@yellowsub.sgi.com (Tom Lord)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: renaming
Message-ID: <8238@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Date: 29 May 90 22:36:56 GMT
References: <18591@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>
Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 26

In article <18591@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> budd@mist.CS.ORST.EDU (Tim Budd) writes:
>When using inheritance, particularly multiple inheritance, it seems I often
>miss the ability to do renaming, as in Eiffel.
>
>[...]  As it stands, now I have to do something like the following
>
>class foo : public bar, pubic baz {
>	...
>	void gak(int i) { bar::geek(i); }
>	..
>}
>
>which is arguably no less readable, but does introduce the run-time
>overhead of one additional function invocation.

This should have no extra overhead at all.  That is the point of 
inline functions.

Whatever system your language has for resolving `name clashes' in 
cases like this is definately going to be wrong.  Providing rename 
operators to sprinkle throughout declarations is quirky at best.
Writing code to resolve the abiguities is the most general, and simplest
solution.  Having your compiler do inline optimizations for this code
is a pretty good impementation strategy.

-t