On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 00:47, Wei Dai wrote: > These are both extraneous warnings that I won't bother "fixing". In the > first case, throwing an exception is a perfectly valid way of exiting a > function without returning a value. The compiler should be smart enough to > figure it out, or at least provide a way to disable the warning. GCC does > not do either. In the second case, it's optional to declare a destructor > on a derived class when the base class has a virtual destructor. The > compiler should provide a default destructor when needed. What is the > point of writing extra code to do exactly what the default destructor > does, just to satisfy the compiler?
I am going to ask a few people I know about your two remarks here. I am not sure I understand the first completely. The second one I believe is not entirely correct. I will get back this. Stephen -- Stephen Torri GPG Key: http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~storri/storri.asc
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
