On 07/03/2012 09:55 PM, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
Yes, but as I said, if it _didn't_ select the member function when
there was a
conflict, it would be impossible to call the member function whenever
there was
a conflict. There is no way to indicate that you mean a member
function rath
On Tuesday, July 03, 2012 21:55:47 bearophile wrote:
> So maybe it's worth accepting this limitation, to reduce
> confusion for the people the read the code.
I would give a resounding no on that one. The confusion on how to actually
manage to be able to use your member function would t hen be eve
Jonathan M Davis:
Yes, but as I said, if it _didn't_ select the member function
when there was a
conflict, it would be impossible to call the member function
whenever there was
a conflict. There is no way to indicate that you mean a member
function rather
than a free function. The normal way t
On 6/27/2012 8:39 PM, Roman D. Boiko wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 05:52:00 UTC, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
After a number of WTF moments, it's finally available:
https://github.com/rainers/visuald
Let them pull requests keep comin'! (But please be patient, I will
have to learn the procedu
> Thanks to C++ for inspiration, I even have proposal for such
> syntax!
>
>obj.free myFunc( args )
>obj.member myFunc( args )
>
>
How about:
obj.myFunc( args ); // calls member function, even if free function exists
myFunc( obj, args ); // calls free function, even if member funct
