From: Peter Vanroose <Peter.V<anroose@es...>  20040510 18:41:35

> >  operator vnl_matrix<T> () const { return inverse(); } > > + operator vnl_matrix<T> () const { return this>inverse(); } > > are purely stylistic, right? Surely gcc 3.4 would compile the code > fine without the change above. If it does not, it's not a C++ compiler! The "problem" is that inverse() is a method if the parent class. So the solution could have been return vnl_matrix<T>::inverse(); Maybe there is ambiguity with an other variable "inverse" or so?  Peter. 