Christoph Ludwig <cludwig@cdc.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de> writes:
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 10:40:43AM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Jonathan Wakely <cow@compsoc.man.ac.uk> writes:
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 :)
I was sure, but I was wrong and you guys are both right. The example needs to be changed: struct number : boost::integer_arithmetic<number> { explicit number(long x_) : x(x_) {} operator long() const { return x; } template <class T> number& operator+=(T const& rhs) { x += rhs; return *this; } template <class T> number& operator-=(T const& rhs) { x -= rhs; return *this; } template <class T> number& operator*=(T const& rhs) { x *= rhs; return *this; } template <class T> number& operator/=(T const& rhs) { x /= rhs; return *this; } template <class T> number& operator%=(T const& rhs) { x %= rhs; return *this; } long x; }; And, incidentally, class_<number>("number", init<long>()) ^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com