Howard Hinnant wrote:
> In article <37laceF5e4e9sU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is essentially a re-post of a message from a few days ago, with
>> a more eye-catching subject line.
>>
>> According to section 13.6 of the standard, an operator of the form
>>
>> T& operator*(T*)
>>
>> should be considered during overload resolution for an expression of
>> the form *x
>> where x has class type, only if T is a function type or an object
>> type. Since void is not an object type, the no operator of the form
>> operator*(void*) should
>> be considered.
>>
>> However, I'm getting a complaint of ambiguity from Codewarrior 9.3
>> and 9.4 relating to an expression *x, where x has type std::istream,
>> in which one of the
>> two candidate functions is described as operator*(void*). (See
>> http://tinyurl.com/626kr).
>>
>> The following test program is a simplification of the code which
>> leads to the above error.
>>
>> struct Thing {
>> operator void* () const;
>> };
>>
>> struct any {
>> template<class T>
>> any(T const&);
>> };
>>
>> char operator*(any const&);
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> Thing t;
>> *t;
>> }
>>
>> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Jonathan, thank you very much for the concise bug re****t. Our
> apologies for not getting back to you sooner. This has been forwarded
> to our chief compiler engineer, and fixed for the next release.
<snip workaround>
> Thanks again for the bug re****t, your perseverance, and your patience.
Thanks, Howard!
> -Howard
Jonathan
|
