At 1:50 AM +0200 on 6/14/99, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
>>Why not the ISO's classes?
>
>Anthony,
>
> I don't know them, so it's a omission due to my uninformed state. But
>since C is basically an ANSI standard, it makes sense to use the
>accompanying stuff. Except if we can make sure it's available on all other
>platforms for most compilers and it's better than the ANSI ones. Of course,
>if we use wx, we should just use wxString.
LOL. ANSI is the American member body of the ISO... ISO did C++. ANSI did C.
> Been saying that for years but you never sent me one :->
It's too hard to through books across the Atlantic. Something about some
law of gravity someone named Newton made up <g>
> I was talking about constructors of classes we inherit from.
Ah! I see what you're saying. That makes sence. However, I think that C++
still guarantess the constructor called -- even if not done explicitly.
