Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-winken!uunet!kddlab!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond!diamond
From: diamond@diamond.csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: nit picking questions
Message-ID: <10161@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET>
Date: 13 Apr 89 05:29:14 GMT
References: <161@riunite.ACA.MCC.COM> <9189@alice.UUCP>
Sender: news@csl.sony.JUNET
Reply-To: diamond@diamond.csl.sony.jp (Norman Diamond)
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Lines: 59

In article <9189@alice.UUCP> bs@alice.UUCP (Bjarne Stroustrup)
very kindly answers most of the questions that were asked by
Ron Guilmette.  If Mr. Stroustrup has time, please kindly try
to answer some of them again.

>Is it legal for an "operator delete" to return anything other than
>type "void"?
>***> Yes. It can take an additional argument of type long (a size)
What about the _return_ type?

>If a method member is declared in a derived class, can it be
>redeclared in a derived class as a data member?
>***> No (assuming you mean in the same derived class). You can only
>	overload functions.
Mr. Guilmette must have meant:
If a method member is declared in a _base_ class, can it be
redeclared in a derived class as a data member?
(method member == member function)

>If this kind of redeclaration is allowed, what would the expression
>&class_name::member_name yield in such cases?
>***> It isn't.
Probably it is, when the preceding question is corrected.  Isn't
the rule the same, finding the most derived type in the class lattice?

>Is it legal or illegal to try to take the address of an overloaded
>method or function using the '&' operator?   Given a particular
>overloaded function or method that you absolutely *must* get the
>address of, is there any way of uniquely specifying a particular
>one of the overloadings?
>***> Yes. See the reference manual section 8.9. Essentailly, you can
>	only take the address of an overloaded function if the context
>	uniquely identifies which version.
How do you provide the context?  Mr. Guilmette's suggestion (following)
seems very reasonable.

>  Specifically, is the following allowed
>(or will it ever be)?
>
>		&class_name::overloaded_method_name(int,int)
>***> no and no (that would be ambiguous with a call)
It would not be ambiguous.  & cannot be applied to the result of a
call.  More obviously, "int" cannot be an actual parameter of a call,
only an expression can be, but this does not help when a function
takes no parameters.

------ cut here and discard everything below this point. ------

>Can a union have public, private and protected parts?
>Can a union contain member functions?

Gee, I thought the most interesting unions are those of private parts,
one of which is a ...
Never mind.

Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.jp@relay.cs.net)
  The above opinions are my own.   |  Why are programmers criticized for
  If they're also your opinions,   |  re-inventing the wheel, when car
  you're infringing my copyright.  |  manufacturers are praised for it?