Re: [boost] Re: Status of Boost.Python docs?

From: Christoph Ludwig (cludwig_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-05 10:48:57

On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:40:43AM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
> Christoph Ludwig <cludwig_at_[hidden]> writes:
[...]
> > OK, it was no problem to fix this. But if run on the complete
> > operators example, the compiler (gcc 3.4.2 on 686-pc-linux-gnu) chokes
> > nevertheless. And this time I can't make much sense out of the error
> > messages. 
> 
> > (In case someone is interested, the compiler output is
> > online at <URL:http://tinyurl.com/5u3rr>.)
> 
> error: ambiguous overload for 'operator+' in 'l + r'
> note: candidates are: operator+(long int, long int) <built-in>
> note:                 number boost::operator+(const number&, const number&)
> 
> GCC claims that the operator+ provided by integer_arithmetic<number>
> is ambiguous with the one that uses an implicit conversion to int
> on each side of the operator.  That's a compiler bug; the former is
> an exact match.

Are you sure? This particular error message starts

  In static member function `static PyObject*
  boost::python::detail::operator_l< op_add>::
  apply<L, R>::execute(L&, const R&) [with L = number, R = long int]'
  
whence an exact match would be operator+(number const&, long int). And
since number has both a non-explicit constructor taking a long and a
operator long() const, I don't see why either of above operator+
overloads should be a better match. Am I missing something?

Regards

Christoph
-- 
http://www.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de/TI/Mitarbeiter/cludwig.html
LiDIA: http://www.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de/TI/LiDIA/Welcome.html