You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
both declare functions with the same parameter-type-list, equivalent ([temp.over.link]) trailing requires-clauses (if any, except as specified in [temp.friend]), and, if both are non-static members, the same cv-qualifiers (if any) and ref-qualifier (if both have one)
The above rule could be understood to, For two non-static member functions with the same parameter-type-list, if anyone has a cv-qualifiers then both declarations should have the same cv-qualifiers; if both declarations have ref-qualifier, they should have the same ref-qualifier. Otherwise, they do not correspond.
In this snippet, Does #1 correspond to #2? Since #2 has a cv-qualifier but #1 does not have, even if the condition for having the same ref-qualifier is true, as per the rule(note the emphasized and in that rule), they do not correspond. So why couldn't they overload if per the draft? After all, the section over.load#2.3 was removed by P1787.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
xmh0511
changed the title
Description about two non-static member declarations that correspond
Description for two non-static member declarations to determine whether they correspond
Mar 15, 2021
The basic.scope#scope-3.3.1 says
The above rule could be understood to, For two non-static member functions with the same parameter-type-list, if anyone has a cv-qualifiers then both declarations should have the same cv-qualifiers; if both declarations have ref-qualifier, they should have the same ref-qualifier. Otherwise, they do not correspond.
In this snippet, Does #1 correspond to #2? Since #2 has a cv-qualifier but #1 does not have, even if the condition for having the same
ref-qualifier
is true, as per the rule(note the emphasized and in that rule), they do not correspond. So why couldn't they overload if per the draft? After all, the section over.load#2.3 was removed by P1787.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: