Closed Milerius closed 4 years ago
That is known behavior and is expected. Your access_xy defined two x and y member functions with different const-qualifiers. So the question is which one you would like to reflect. By shadowing the definitions of the two functions, the visible x and y are not const-qualified and that is why it is possible to resolve to a singular function pointer.
Maybe it would be possible for me to suggest a better solution if I had more information about the use case. What would you do with the function pointers? Are they being stored somewhere? Why is function_descriptor#operator() or even refl::runtime::invoke() not sufficient? Both will correctly invoke the proper overload.
Yeah renaming solved my problem totally !
It's because of the const qualifier the scripting system where i was registering type was thinking i try to register a null pointer to member
Yes, adding a get/set prefix is another viable solution. I am glad you've resolved the issue!
Hello
i have the following snippet:
I would like if possible to remove the x y function that i add to reflect correctly my base class
but when i try to invoke x() or y() without my trick it's not a valid pointer to member
It's possible to reflect base class functions ?
my full vector class which use mixins: