Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:11411 comp.std.c++:562
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: overloading resolution and const
Message-ID: <118@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 1 Feb 91 16:12:17 GMT
References: <63156@brunix.UUCP>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c++
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 32

In article <63156@brunix.UUCP> sdm@cs.brown.edu (Scott Meyers) writes:
>The single-parameter case doesn't seem to lend any insight, since no
>compiler I have access to will accept the following two functions in the
>same scope:
>
>    void f(double) {}
>    void f(const double) {}

Certainly not, these two are equivalent, since argument passing is by value,
not by reference (unless specificly declared otherwise).  You might have
noticed that the text you cited from the ARM only mentions pointer and
reference types in the context of the 'const' qualifier.  Thus you might
try the following pair:

    void f(double &);
    void f(const double &);

A cfront 2.X compatible compiler had better accept both of these in the
same scope, or it is not truly 2.X compatible.

Now with these declared the following code will call each one in turn:

    double nd;
    const double cd;
    f(nd);		/* calls f(double&) since this avoids a 'const' */
    f(cd);		/* cals f(const double&) since const required   */


I hope this clarifies the matter.
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)