<![CDATA[MISRA Discussion Forums - 4.16 Overloading]]>

<![CDATA[MISRA Discussion Forums - 4.16 Overloading]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/ Fri, 13 Nov 2026 11:06:22 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[16.6.1 clarification]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1733 Wed, 26 Mar 2025 14:36:11 +0000 cgpzs]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1733
Rule 16.6.1 marks this example as non-compliant:

Code:
C operator+( int32_t rhs ) const;  // Non-compliant

However it does not provide a compliant alternative. It's unclear if rule 16.6.1 wants us to:

a) Duplicate the function and create 2 versions for each order of the parameters, in order to guarantee symmetry (even if it may not be useful for the user, potentially being dead code):

Code:
C operator+(C       lhs, int32_t rhs );

C operator+(int32_t lhs, C       rhs );

b) Implement only 1 overload, but as a non-member function. This still does not solve the problem of "operator+ must be symmetrical", i.e that "1 + c" and "c + 1" must be supported.

Code:
friend C operator+(C lhs, int32_t rhs );

Could you clarify?

Thanks!]]>
Rule 16.6.1 marks this example as non-compliant:

Code:
C operator+( int32_t rhs ) const;  // Non-compliant

Code:
C operator+(C       lhs, int32_t rhs );

C operator+(int32_t lhs, C       rhs );

b) Implement only 1 overload, but as a non-member function. This still does not solve the problem of "operator+ must be symmetrical", i.e that "1 + c" and "c + 1" must be supported.

Code:
friend C operator+(C lhs, int32_t rhs );

Could you clarify?

Thanks!]]>