Re: [RFA] handling of 'operator' in cp_find_first_component

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>]

On Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 07:27  PM, David Carlton wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:33:05 -0400, Daniel Berlin 
> <dberlin@dberlin.org> said:
>
>> To answer whether you need the return type, let's add two
>> specializations here and make it worse:
>
>> template <> long foo (int a)
>> {
>> 	return 9;
>> }
>> template <> int foo (int a)
>> {
>> 	return 10;
>> }
>
> Yeah, but that's illegal, isn't it?  You can't have two functions that
> differ only in return type: otherwise, how would the compiler know
> which one to use in a call to foo?
>
> I tried it out in GCC; the above doesn't compile (I guess templates
> with 0 parameters aren't legal),

It's not a template, it's a specialization, i just didn't paste the 
right thing.
template <> int foo<int> (int a)
{
         return 5;
}
template <> long foo<long> (int a)
{
         return 9;
}
is what that should be.

You can have two templates that only differ in return type, and they 
become, when instantiated, two functions that only differ in return 
type.
--Dan