Re: Problem with linker
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 00:27:37 -0400, Joseph M. Newcomer
<newcomer@flounder.com> wrote:
It has been a large number of years since I first got nuked by bad overload resolution
caused by default parameters; indeed, the modern conforming C++ compilers probably
actually do this right. I just try to avoid overloaded constructors with default
parameters.
joe
That's fine. However, modern C++ compilers don't "probably" get this right;
they do get this right, and I don't know of any older compiler that got it
wrong. For anyone still reading this thread, here's a summary of what I've
posted so far:
1. Default arguments don't participate in overload resolution and never
have. (It wouldn't make any sense for them to participate.)
2. Based on your description, the problem you encountered when using
default arguments would also have occurred had you decomposed the function
into the equivalent set of overloads that don't use default arguments,
which is expected.
3. There's nothing special about ctors vs normal member functions WRT
default arguments.
4. As Stroustrup says in D&E, p. 59, "Given general function overloading,
default arguments are logically redundant and at best a minor notational
convenience," hence what I said about them being "syntactic sugar".
--
Doug Harrison
Visual C++ MVP