Re: Row::at() doesn't take const int?

[Warren Young]

Johannes Schaub wrote:
> 
> perhaps this problem could be solved by creating an additional 
operator[] which
> takes just a "const int", 

I tried it, and couldn't get it to work.  There seem to be additional 
overloading problems down that path.  If you can make it work, I'd love 
to see a patch for this, since just adding some more overloads mean we 
don't have to wait for v3.0 to fix this.