You're right. We do indeed get Derived::foo(). Which just goes to show how confusing this can be to explain (but simple once you understand it). The task will be to come up with a good presentation for the next LRM. On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Bresticker, Shalom <shalom.bresticker@intel.com> wrote: > Hi, > >> d->foo(); // ditto. Here we must look up to pick up the >> definition in Base. >> l->foo(); // ditto. > > Since the reference types are Derived and Leaf, respectively, why don't we get Derived::foo() ? > > Thanks, > Shalom > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Intel Israel (74) Limited > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Dec 31 11:36:49 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 31 2008 - 11:37:28 PST