From: Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@bsb.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 20:35:50 +0100
Local: Tues, Aug 7 2012 3:35 pm
Subject: Re: 'Overloading' Class member functions and Virtual functions
nvangogh <nvang...@invalid.net> writes:There is no fundamental reason for overloading but it the name of the
> My understanding is that a class member function can be overloaded -
> that is to say, it's name can be used more than once so long as the
> parameters are different.
> So is the only advantage of overloading a class member function, the
function is operator+=, then the advantage of keeping the name is not
> On another point, I have been introduced to the concept of 'VirtualAny feature can be avoided; after all, C++ was first implemented as a
> Functions' via a game project that I am currently working on. In my
> studies of C++ I have not yet reached this particular topic which is
> listed under 'advanced topics' in my book.
> Many open source games seem to have lots of virtual functions in
translator that turned C++ into C, but there is no sensible way to avoid
virtual functions if they make sense for a particular program. They
form part of the core that allows C++ to be used for object-oriented
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.