Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!mordor!joyce!ames!mailrus!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!rutgers!att!ihlpa!vkar
From: vkar@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Thayalan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Default initializations for class constructors
Summary: Zortech C++ compiler handles this correct.
Keywords: c++
Message-ID: <9370@ihlpa.ATT.COM>
Date: 12 Sep 88 18:39:55 GMT
References: <684@paris.ICS.UCI.EDU> <8184@alice.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 29

In article <8184@alice.UUCP>, bs@alice.UUCP (Bjarne Stroustrup) writes:
> 
> 
> bonnie.ics.uci.edu
>  University of California, Irvine - Dept. of ICS)
> 
>  > Hi,
> 
>  >   Can someone please enlighten me as to the correct behavior of C++
>  > when class constructors with different argument types are all declared
>  > to have default parameter initializers?  My basic question is, which
>  > of the constructors should be selected if the type is not clear from
>  > the definition of a class object?  G++ appears to use the first
>  > lexically presented constructor as the default, is this specified, or
>  > is the behavior undefined in the language?
> 
> No, the implicit call of (some) foo::foo() from bar::bar() is ambiguous
> and therefore clearly an error. Cfront gets it wrong too, though. Sorry.
> 
> 	- Bjarne





The Zortech C++ compiler on my PC handles this correctly.
It gives a error, stating that it cannot resolve which
constructor for the class foo to use in the derived class bar.

k. Thayalan