Not sure whether this should only be a warning (haven't mustered the effort to trawl the standard this early in the morning)

class X
{
public:
    operator const char const * () const
    {
        return 0;
    }
};

gives

 Error: ...: illegal combination of types

I expected it to simply tell me that the first (or second) const was
superfluous.

I don't object to this one in its current form, but am concerned as to whether it means that the compiler would balk in a template class defintion where that template defines a member typedef an a constant type with which it is parameterised, and the parameterising type is itself const. Borland does have problems in this area.

Matthew

"Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> wrote in message news:amlfgi$p8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Not sure whether this should only be a warning (haven't mustered the
effort
> to trawl the standard this early in the morning)
>
> class X
> {
> public:
>     operator const char const * () const
>     {
>         return 0;
>     }
> };
>
> gives
>
>  Error: ...: illegal combination of types
>
> I expected it to simply tell me that the first (or second) const was
> superfluous.

I believe the standard says it's supposed to be an error, just like short short is an error, and short int short is an error.


> I don't object to this one in its current form, but am concerned as to whether it means that the compiler would balk in a template class
defintion
> where that template defines a member typedef an a constant type with which it is parameterised, and the parameterising type is itself const. Borland does have problems in this area.

This should work fine.

> I believe the standard says it's supposed to be an error, just like short short is an error, and short int short is an error.

In which case I prefer the DMC version. Helps me that bit more to validate the code.