3 Overloads Have Similar Conversions

Hi everyone,
I overloaded the addition operator for pointer notation in my assignment and I keep getting this error when I compile:

3 overloads have similar conversions
could be 'char *operator +(int,const String &)'
or 'String operator +(char,String &)'
or 'String operator +(const String &,const String &)'
while trying to match the argument list '(int, String)'
note: qualification adjustment (const/volatile) may be causing the ambiguity

It is happening at this part of the code:

Code:

void test15() {
    cout << "15. Testing S15: Pointer notation." << endl << endl;
    csis << "15. Testing S15: Pointer notation." << endl << endl;
    String s15("ABCDE");
    for(int i = 0; i < s15.getLength(); i++)
        ++(*(s15+i));
    for (int j = 0; j < s15.getLength(); j++) {
        cout << *(j + s15);
        csis << *(j + s15);
    }
    cout << endl;
    csis << endl;
    wait();
}

And these are my overloaded operators...

I believe this is the one it should be using for the pointer notation in this case:

Code:

char* operator+(int index, const String& str){
    char* value;
    value = new char[1];
    value[0] = str.buf[index];
    return value;
}

Code:

char* operator+(const String& str, int index){
    char* value;
    value = new char[1];
    value[0] = str.buf[index];
    return value;
}

The following one isn't even supposed to be used for pointer notation, but it came up in the error...

Code:

String operator+(char a, String& str){
    int len = str.length;
    int count = 0;
    char* temp;
    temp = new char[len];
    for(int i = 0; i < str.length; i++){
        temp[i] = str.buf[i];
        count++;
    }
    temp[count + 1] = a;
    return temp;
}

So this means that the compiler doesn't know which one to use right? Did I overload them incorrectly?

Thanks for any help!

Please post the complete error messages, these messages have important information to aid in locating and fixing the errors.

Jim

Marking your single-argument constructor(s) with the explicit keyword will likely solve this problem.
Look up the explicit keyword.