Hi Mathias, On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 08:43 +0200, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> In the current situation the problem didn't happen in the class where > the ctor was removed but in some derived classes. These classes formerly > had a ctor (and so it wasn't necessary to declare a default ctor, be it > private or not) that was removed in the patch and now some compiler > thought it might be a good idea to create a default ctor (and didn't > find one in the base class that still had another ctor but no default ctor). Ok. Yeah, this can be very hard to backtrack when it causes a problem later on. > A good example for your approach to have a look before applying the > patch. :-) > And perhaps a hint that always adding a (private) default ctor and copy > ctor is something to think about. Good point. > I found removing the whole class better than playing with declared (but > not implemented) default ctors. At the end a class whose ctor is never > called can't be much useful. :-) Yes. I've also removed a couple of classes instead of just removing the ctor(s) for the reason you already mentioned. So, I definitely agree with you there. As you said, the default ctor not being called is often an indication that the class as a whole is not used at all. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida - OpenOffice.org Engineer - Novell, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
