Hi Jérôme, > Ok, i guess this is because of the same name... Yes, that is correct. >...but why is it ok with the C++ standard? > operator++(int) and operator++() do have the same name, but they are > considered > as different by a c++ compiler... I'm not sure. I suspect it's a C legacy allowance. A kluge. A wart in the C++ standard. > Technically, a::foo() is not "defined" anywhere (i understand what > you mean), > but it does not need to, since it is a pure virtual functions. > But a::foo() is "implemented" in class "d" (return 1), so when > calling a::foo() the > compiler should redirect the call to the implementation d::foo(), no? No. a::foo() is not d::foo(). foo() goes through the virtual function table. a::foo() is explicitly a::foo(). HTH, --Eljay
