Jonathan Wakely <cow@compsoc.man.ac.uk> writes:
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?
I *was* sure, but it turns out you guys are absolutely right. The example is now fixed and tested. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com