Search

See How to Search for an explanation

Area:
Collection:
Category
[Select All choice in choice boxes to search everything]

Found: 2260 articles, showing 0 - 10
... 'C1::C1::f' via dominance [additional warnings elided] Please can someone explain what's going on? The compiler is warning you that it's doing what the language definition says it should do, and that you might not be smart enough to understand what you've done. But you are: the code is exactly right. Here's what's going on: C2 sees two definitons of f, one from C1 and one from i2 (which inherits...

... it from i1). That would be ambiguous if it weren't for the dominance rule. Both C1 and i2 have i1 as a virtual base, so they both see the declaration of i1::f. C1 overrides i1::f, and i2 does not override it. C2 inherits from both, and the dominance rule says that a call to f on a C2 object is not ambiguous and calls C1::f. The definition of f that's nearer to C2 in the hierarchy dominates the one that's farther away...
... 1 warning C4250: 'C2' : inherits 'C1::C1::f' via dominance [additional warnings elided]      Please can someone explain what's going on? The compiler is warning you that it's doing what the language definition says it should do, and that you might not be smart enough to understand what you've done. But you are: the code is exactly right. Here's what's going on: C2 sees two definitons...

... of f, one from C1 and one from i2 (which inherits it from i1). That would be ambiguous if it weren't for the dominance rule. Both C1 and i2 have i1 as a virtual base, so they both see the declaration of i1::f. C1 overrides i1::f, and i2 does not override it. C2 inherits from both, and the dominance rule says that a call to f on a C2 object is not ambiguous and calls C1::f. The definition of f that's nearer to C2 in the hierarchy...

... dominates the one that's farther away. This rule only applies when all the inheritance paths lead to a common virtual base type that declares the function and only one of those paths has an overriding declaration. So if i2 also defined f, the call from C2 would be ambiguous. Got it? <g> Think so - thanks (it's a little bit intricate) :-) Generated by PreciseInfo ™ ...
... 'C1::C1::f' via dominance [additional warnings elided] Please can someone explain what's going on? The compiler is warning you that it's doing what the language definition says it should do, and that you might not be smart enough to understand what you've done. But you are: the code is exactly right. Here's what's going on: C2 sees two definitons of f, one from C1 and one from i2 (which inherits...

... it from i1). That would be ambiguous if it weren't for the dominance rule. Both C1 and i2 have i1 as a virtual base, so they both see the declaration of i1::f. C1 overrides i1::f, and i2 does not override it. C2 inherits from both, and the dominance rule says that a call to f on a C2 object is not ambiguous and calls C1::f. The definition of f that's nearer to C2 in the hierarchy dominates the one that's farther away...
... 'C1::C1::f' via dominance [additional warnings elided] Please can someone explain what's going on? The compiler is warning you that it's doing what the language definition says it should do, and that you might not be smart enough to understand what you've done. But you are: the code is exactly right. Here's what's going on: C2 sees two definitons of f, one from C1 and one from i2 (which inherits...

... it from i1). That would be ambiguous if it weren't for the dominance rule. Both C1 and i2 have i1 as a virtual base, so they both see the declaration of i1::f. C1 overrides i1::f, and i2 does not override it. C2 inherits from both, and the dominance rule says that a call to f on a C2 object is not ambiguous and calls C1::f. The definition of f that's nearer to C2 in the hierarchy dominates the one that's farther away...
... 1 warning C4250: 'C2' : inherits 'C1::C1::f' via dominance [additional warnings elided]      Please can someone explain what's going on? The compiler is warning you that it's doing what the language definition says it should do, and that you might not be smart enough to understand what you've done. But you are: the code is exactly right. Here's what's going on: C2 sees two definitons...

... of f, one from C1 and one from i2 (which inherits it from i1). That would be ambiguous if it weren't for the dominance rule. Both C1 and i2 have i1 as a virtual base, so they both see the declaration of i1::f. C1 overrides i1::f, and i2 does not override it. C2 inherits from both, and the dominance rule says that a call to f on a C2 object is not ambiguous and calls C1::f. The definition of f that's nearer to C2 in the hierarchy...

... dominates the one that's farther away. This rule only applies when all the inheritance paths lead to a common virtual base type that declares the function and only one of those paths has an overriding declaration. So if i2 also defined f, the call from C2 would be ambiguous. Got it? <g> Think so - thanks (it's a little bit intricate) :-) Generated by PreciseInfo ™ ...
... 'C1::C1::f' via dominance [additional warnings elided] Please can someone explain what's going on? The compiler is warning you that it's doing what the language definition says it should do, and that you might not be smart enough to understand what you've done. But you are: the code is exactly right. Here's what's going on: C2 sees two definitons of f, one from C1 and one from i2 (which inherits...

... it from i1). That would be ambiguous if it weren't for the dominance rule. Both C1 and i2 have i1 as a virtual base, so they both see the declaration of i1::f. C1 overrides i1::f, and i2 does not override it. C2 inherits from both, and the dominance rule says that a call to f on a C2 object is not ambiguous and calls C1::f. The definition of f that's nearer to C2 in the hierarchy dominates the one that's farther away...
...;f()" << std::endl;     } }; struct C2 : C1, virtual I2 {     void g()     {         std::cout << "g()" << std::endl;     } }; [example simplified] When I do this, I get compiler warnings: Warning 1 warning C4250: 'C2' : inherits 'C1::C1::f' via dominance...

... if it weren't for the dominance rule. Both C1 and i2 have i1 as a virtual base, so they both see the declaration of i1::f. C1 overrides i1::f, and i2 does not override it. C2 inherits from both, and the dominance rule says that a call to f on a C2 object is not ambiguous and calls C1::f. The definition of f that's nearer to C2 in the hierarchy dominates the one that's farther away. This rule only applies...
... and margin notes are Dilling's: From 586 BC — to 40 A.D. Babylon Dominates "Jewish mind" Spain History of the Talmud by Michael L. Rodkinson, 1903 The full text of this exhibit (without marginal notation) from Michael Rodkinson's History of the Talmud has been reproduced for the reader's convenience. Table of All Exhibits ...
... MFC VC Abstract Class Code: warning C4250 (method inherited via dominance) vs error c2250 (ambiguous inheritance) Prev Next MFC VC Abstract Class Code Index Headers Help Home Your browser does not support iframes. Re: warning C4250 (method inherited via dominance) vs error c2250 (ambiguous inheritance) From: "Tom Widmer [VC++ MVP]" <tom_usenet@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: microsoft...

....public.vc.language Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:07:24 +0100 Message-ID: <OCjM#0f#HHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl> j.j.a.perks@googlemail.com wrote: I have a classic virtual inheritance diamond in my class structure, and I was wondering to what extent C4250 ('class1' : inherits 'class2::member' via dominance) was safe to ignore. It looks like just an informative comment in case you don't know how...
... in message news:qjknu41j476i0kuqo4cs990ac9tb81de3l@4ax.com... On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:05:39 -0700, "David Ching" <dc@remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote: "r norman" <r_s_norman@comcast.net> wrote in message news:a0tju4tgs1o200gl4qgmq20pakhpape7ec@4ax.com... Microsoft dominated the microcomputer development tools market ever since MASM and LINK! Borland's Turbo products were a brief...

... interlude. Not sure what planet you are referring to. Turbo Pascal was the dominant way of creating DOS apps, and later there was a battle between Turbo C and Quick C. TASM was about even with MASM. Microsoft C (with the insanely great CodeView debugger) then pulled ahead as the only solution for Windows apps in the Windows 1.x and 2.x timeframes (but very few people were foolish enough to support those...

... immature platforms, prior to Windows 3). At the Windows 3 timeframe, Borland C++ surpassed it with Turbo Debugger and reigned supreme for several years. I would say Borland dominated from the DOS timeframe up to just before the Windows 95 timeframe. This is hardly a "brief interlude." I am talking pre-PC/MS-DOS and pre IBM-PC. I am talking about CP/M. Borland didn't exist. I don't think MASM...

Search time: 0.011 seconds.

How to Search

  • Enter a search word or a sentence (not too long).
  • If you want to search for exact phrase, surround it with quotes (") like "what is love" or "how to meditate". Otherwise there will be lots of false matches.
  • You can use OR between the words if you are looking for articles containing any of those words. Otherwise, all words needs to be present for an article to match your search.
  • You can specify which collection and/or chapter to search. All choice in choice lists - searches all.
  • Search will also search for synonyms and all the words with the same root (stem).