BP> Another question: is it a new behavior in C++?  MFC writers didn't t
No, it isn't new.
BP> into account, as CSyncObject use similar inherintace:
BP> virtual Lock() = 0;
BP> virtual Lock(something);  // this is defined in CSyncObject
BP> And inherited classes like CMutex, etc do not define but the first.
BP> And as CSyncObject is an abstract class it's not really clear the be
BP> definig the second Lock there.
If   these   methods  are  always  accessed  through  the  CSyncObject
interface, this isn't a problem. It's only a problem if  you  want  to
access Lock(something) through a pointer to CMutex.
Thomas
---
 þ MM 1.0 #0113 þ I'm always sincere, whether I mean it or not ...
---------------