------- Comment #5 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-01 18:37 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > On second thoughts, it might be necessary to split it into two overloads for > C++1x, because this should work:
Gah, ignore that, I'm talking rubbish and that shouldn't work Andrew, the standard would allow two overloads instead of one, see [member.functions]/2 - and the C++1x draft specifies two separate overloads. It's a reasonable enhancement request IMHO, but necessarily not a bug. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42242
