3 ms·
> Is an error in C, but surprisingly C++ is less strict here, not only allowing it but also taking the semantics of the definition. (Spooky) Aren't these just
by pdpi 7y ago
> Is an error in C, but surprisingly C++ is less strict here, not only allowing it but also taking the semantics of the definition. (Spooky)
Aren't these just declaring one overload of foo and defining a different overload?
- ndesaulniers 7y agoAh! That's it, thanks! edited the article
- J-Kuhn 7y agoCame here to say something that I suspect operator overloadíng. I read your comment, pressed refresh, and it was already fixed.
- Thorrez 7y agoYeah, there's nothing spooky there. C++ supports overloads and C doesn't.
- hermitdev 7y agoYeah, it's an overload as others have replied. The difference between C and C++ here, is that you should get a linker error if you try and invoke the undefined overload in C++ (C doesn't allow overloading, nor does it require a forward declaration). This is how we "deleted" functions, especially otherwise auto generated ones such as a default or copy constructor and assignment operator pre C++11.