From: Jonathan Wakely (cow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-05 11:11:10
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:40:43AM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
> > 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?
(I don't doubt you are, just trying to understand it myself :)
Looks to me as though the exact match would be
operator+(number&, long int const&);
So either of the overloads given would involve a conversion.
So any bug wouldn't in the overload resolution, but in whatever caused
boost::python::detail::operator_l<op_add>::apply<L, R>::execute(L&, const R&)
to be instantiated ... [with L = number, R = long int]
Should there be another overload that doesn't require the conversion?
-- "Entropy requires no maintenance"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk