On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 13:40, Robert Collins wrote: > On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 13:01, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > > > And that adaptation is not in a manner analagous to that happening in e.g. > > HANDLEWrapper*. xxWrapper are full-blown, honest-to-God classes, with > > destructors and everything, and are not inherited from structs. Virtual > > functions could be added, one could go nuts, no problems. Not so with RECTPP. > > > > And the name "RECTPP" certainly brought to your attention that *something* > > unusual was up, and thus served the very purpose you've claimed on several > > occaisions it doesn't. > > I never claimed that RECTPP did not bring it to my attention. I said > that RECTPP is not evocative of your intended use.
Oh, just thinking, one name comes to mind that you might like, and that will evoke the right idea: Setup::RECT. I.E. Put the class in namespace Setup. Then inherit from ::RECT. The comment on virtual use etc near the class defn. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
