http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8146

           Summary: Potentially ambiguous overloaded call
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody@puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: bearophile_hugs@eml.cc


--- Comment #0 from bearophile_hugs@eml.cc 2012-05-24 15:02:39 PDT ---
This is just a potential enhancement request. It's not an enhancement request because I am not sure about it.

A thread started by Andrej Mitrovic on D.learn: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mailman.1043.1337863952.24740.digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com

In dmd 2.060alpha this code compiles and doesn't assert at run-time, so it calls the second overload:


struct Foo {}
void test(void* test) { assert(0); }
void test(Foo* test) {}
void main() {
    test(null);
}


As Andrej comments, shouldn't this be considered an ambiguous call, and refused at compile time?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8146



--- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg@gmail.com> 2012-05-24 22:42:16 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> This is just a potential enhancement request. It's not an enhancement request because I am not sure about it.
> 
> A thread started by Andrej Mitrovic on D.learn: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mailman.1043.1337863952.24740.digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
> 
> In dmd 2.060alpha this code compiles and doesn't assert at run-time, so it calls the second overload:
> 
> 
> struct Foo {}
> void test(void* test) { assert(0); }
> void test(Foo* test) {}
> void main() {
>     test(null);
> }
> 
> 
> As Andrej comments, shouldn't this be considered an ambiguous call, and refused at compile time?

I think, no.

First, test(Foo*) is specialized than test(void*), because Foo* is convertible
to void*, but opposite isn't.

Next, a null literal has the typeof(null) and it is *most specialized type* of
all reference types. Then typeof(null) is a specialized type than Foo*.

So, with the call 'test(null)', overload resolution will select more
specialized test(Foo*) than test(void*).

Following is a similar case by the class hierarchy.

class B{}      // like void*
class C : B{}  // like Foo*
class D : C{}  // like typeof(null)
void foo(B o){}
void foo(C o){}
void main() {
    foo(new D); // calls foo(C)
}

As far as I know, this rule is same as C++.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8146


bearophile_hugs@eml.cc changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID


--- Comment #2 from bearophile_hugs@eml.cc 2012-05-25 03:09:00 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)

> As far as I know, this rule is same as C++.

C++ is often not not a good model to copy, but I trust your judgment and knowledge, so I close this ER as invalid.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------