Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes:
>> And answers are trickling in; see thread starting with
>>
>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-users/2018-November/001417.html
>
> And here's the definite answer from a clang developer:
>
> The rule for determining when a base class function declaration
> introduced by a using-declaration is hidden by a derived class
> function declaration does not take the template parameter list into
> account: http://eel.is/c++draft/namespace.udecl#15.sentence-1
Huh? This link states:
When a using-declarator brings declarations from a base class into a
derived class, member functions and member function templates in the
derived class override and/or hide member functions and member
function templates with the same name, parameter-type-list,
cv-qualification, and ref-qualifier (if any) in a base class (rather
than conflicting).
The parameter-type-list is a different one in this example since they
contain a different member function pointer type. Which is the reason
we need the whole hooplahoop in the first place.
> So clang's behaviour is conforming and gcc's behaviour is not. At
> the very least, though, we should issue a warning for the using
> declaration, because this is a surprising rule.
I disagree.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
