To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=60692
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 17 09:17:20 -0800 2006 ------- > where there is a declaration of > an entity in a file that is processed by autodoc, while the definition of the > entity is in another file that is not processed by autodoc. In this case one processes the file with the definition. However, I suggest to stay with the actual use case. It is good programming practice to keep things simple, standard and unmistakable. Having undefined structs looks strange at least. If one wants to do something real with the template, they are parameters to, I am not even sure, if it is correct to leave them undefined, when the template is instantiated. What is the C++-standard paragraph allowing this? And even (as I assume) if you made sure, this is correct - can we be absolutely sure that in no future use case those structs may need a definition anyway? Besides, if one defines those structs as empty, one can even avoid half of the comment (the part that they are not defined and why). Looking at all that, what is the reason to leave these struct undefined? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
