On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure I understand why the ovl_iterator assignment needs > to be provided but if it does, not also defining one on the derived > class will call the base and return a reference to the base, making > the result no longer suitable where the derived is needed. This > is true for any other base members that return [a reference to] > the base type. >
Huh? The implicitly declared copy assignment operator in a derived class will always hide the assignment operators from the base class. Also, operator bool() seems suspect. Consider the safe bool idiom? And is it intended that tree implicitly converts to both iterators, or should those constructors be explicit?
