http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9066
--- Comment #7 from Andrej Mitrovic <[email protected]> 2013-10-04 11:37:43 PDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Inheriting the default constructor is implicit so why would you need an > explicit syntax for non-default constructors? The last time this was discussed (IIRC), people were against this. Maybe my memory is bad. We could have another go at a newsgroup discussion. I haven't yet looked at the C++11 spec, but I wonder why they too haven't made constructor inheritance implicit. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
