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] Wed Jan 18 01:08:13 -0800 2006 ------- <quote>In this case one processes the file with the definition.</quote> Huh? We only process headers and not implementation files. <quote>Having undefined structs looks strange at least.</quote> That might be your personal opinion. However, the idea of information hiding is well established, even in C++ circles. The current implementation of autodoc does not take this into account (it equally fails to work for cases where the class definition is hidden in an implementation file and for cases where there is no class definition at all). <quote>What is the C++-standard paragraph allowing this?</quote> 14.3.1/2 <quote>Looking at all that, what is the reason to leave these struct undefined?</quote> There is no reason to have them defined. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
