Path: utzoo!attcan!ncrcan!scocan!jfischer
From: jfischer@sco.COM (Jonathan A. Fischer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Anyone doing a G++ port of ET++ v2.0?
Message-ID: <1990Oct31.164527.8061@sco.com>
Date: 31 Oct 90 16:45:27 GMT
References: <314@unf7.UUCP> <2336@lupine.NCD.COM>
Sender: news@sco.com (News administration)
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc. (nee HCR Corporation)
Lines: 24

In article <2336@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes:
>... cfront 2.0 allowed a few
>illegalities slip by.  In particular:
>...
>	cfront 2.0 apparently does not insist that the return type of
>	a member function in a derived class should exactly match the
>	return type for the function it overloads (if there is one)
>	in the base class.  Again, g++ insisted on this (quite correctly).

	"Overload" is the wrong word here.  The function in the
derived class in fact _hides_ the function of the same name in the
base class.  Overloading only occurs at the same "level".

	class Base {
		...
		void func( int, int );
	};

	class Derived: public Base {
		...
		long func( void );
	};

is perfectly legal.  g++ should accept this.