| Topic: |
DEVELOP > c-Plus-Plus |
| User: |
"MiG" |
| Date: |
01 Aug 2007 10:59:45 AM |
| Object: |
Avoiding ambiguities |
Hello,
I have the following operators declared in a class:
// Provides R/W direct access to the matrix.
__forceinline const T& operator[](USHORT ndx) const throw()
{ _ASSERT(ndx < 16); return(_mx[ndx]); }
__forceinline T& operator[](USHORT ndx) throw()
{ _ASSERT(ndx < 16); return(_mx[ndx]); }
// Returns pointer to matrix data.
__forceinline operator const T*() const throw()
{ return(_mx); }
__forceinline operator T*() throw()
{ return(_mx); }
When I compile it I get the following errors:
error C2666: 'Matrix4<T>::operator []' : 4 overloads have similar
conversions
with
[
T=float
]
d:\~alibrary\prj\cpp\xgl\0.1a1\inc\primitives.hpp(1515): could
be 'float &Matrix4<T>::operator [](USHORT) throw()'
with
[
T=float
]
d:\~alibrary\prj\cpp\xgl\0.1a1\inc\primitives.hpp(1513): or
'const float &Matrix4<T>::operator [](USHORT) throw() const'
with
[
T=float
]
or 'built-in C++ operator[(const float *, int)'
or 'built-in C++ operator[(float *, int)'
Is there a way of avoiding these errors without having to create a
method for, say, replacing the functionality of the T* operators?
.
|
|
| User: "Victor Bazarov" |
|
| Title: Re: Avoiding ambiguities |
01 Aug 2007 12:22:53 PM |
|
|
MiG wrote:
I have the following operators declared in a class:
// Provides R/W direct access to the matrix.
__forceinline const T& operator[](USHORT ndx) const throw()
{ _ASSERT(ndx < 16); return(_mx[ndx]); }
__forceinline T& operator[](USHORT ndx) throw()
{ _ASSERT(ndx < 16); return(_mx[ndx]); }
// Returns pointer to matrix data.
__forceinline operator const T*() const throw()
{ return(_mx); }
__forceinline operator T*() throw()
{ return(_mx); }
Please, when posting here, try to remove all compiler-specific
junk, like that ___blah nonsense. Your code is not easy to read
with all that crud in it.
When I compile it I get the following errors:
error C2666: 'Matrix4<T>::operator []' : 4 overloads have similar
conversions
with
[
T=float
]
d:\~alibrary\prj\cpp\xgl\0.1a1\inc\primitives.hpp(1515): could
be 'float &Matrix4<T>::operator [](USHORT) throw()'
with
[
T=float
]
d:\~alibrary\prj\cpp\xgl\0.1a1\inc\primitives.hpp(1513): or
'const float &Matrix4<T>::operator [](USHORT) throw() const'
with
[
T=float
]
or 'built-in C++ operator[(const float *, int)'
or 'built-in C++ operator[(float *, int)'
Is there a way of avoiding these errors without having to create a
method for, say, replacing the functionality of the T* operators?
Well, just don't provide the operator T*. Why do you think you need
it in the first place?
V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
.
|
|
|
| User: "MiG" |
|
| Title: Re: Avoiding ambiguities |
01 Aug 2007 01:06:22 PM |
|
|
Victor Bazarov wrote:
MiG wrote:
I have the following operators declared in a class:
// Provides R/W direct access to the matrix.
__forceinline const T& operator[](USHORT ndx) const throw()
{ _ASSERT(ndx < 16); return(_mx[ndx]); }
__forceinline T& operator[](USHORT ndx) throw()
{ _ASSERT(ndx < 16); return(_mx[ndx]); }
// Returns pointer to matrix data.
__forceinline operator const T*() const throw()
{ return(_mx); }
__forceinline operator T*() throw()
{ return(_mx); }
Please, when posting here, try to remove all compiler-specific
junk, like that ___blah nonsense. Your code is not easy to read
with all that crud in it.
When I compile it I get the following errors:
error C2666: 'Matrix4<T>::operator []' : 4 overloads have similar
conversions
with
[
T=float
]
d:\~alibrary\prj\cpp\xgl\0.1a1\inc\primitives.hpp(1515): could
be 'float &Matrix4<T>::operator [](USHORT) throw()'
with
[
T=float
]
d:\~alibrary\prj\cpp\xgl\0.1a1\inc\primitives.hpp(1513): or
'const float &Matrix4<T>::operator [](USHORT) throw() const'
with
[
T=float
]
or 'built-in C++ operator[(const float *, int)'
or 'built-in C++ operator[(float *, int)'
Is there a way of avoiding these errors without having to create a
method for, say, replacing the functionality of the T* operators?
Well, just don't provide the operator T*. Why do you think you need
it in the first place?
V
Alright V, thanks for that. I was really hoping there was a way to keep
the two operators. Not a problem though; I'll just remove the T*s...
Again, thanks V.
.
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|