Given the following example, why do I have to explicitly use the statement b->A::DoSomething()
rather than just b->DoSomething()
?
Shouldn't the compiler's overload resolution figure out which method I'm talking about?
I'm using Microsoft VS 2005. (Note: using virtual doesn't help in this case.)
class A
{
public:
int DoSomething() {return 0;};
};
class B : public A
{
public:
int DoSomething(int x) {return 1;};
};
int main()
{
B* b = new B();
b->A::DoSomething(); //Why this?
//b->DoSomething(); //Why not this? (Gives compiler error.)
delete b;
return 0;
}
The two “overloads” aren't in the same scope. By default, the compiler only considers the smallest possible name scope until it finds a name match. Argument matching is done afterwards. In your case this means that the compiler sees B::DoSomething
. It then tries to match the argument list, which fails.
One solution would be to pull down the overload from A
into B
's scope:
class B : public A {
public:
using A::DoSomething;
// …
}