At 1:03 PM +0200 on 6/14/99, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
> Newton? have one at home. Forgot the password (was my credit card number
>-- ouch!) and am now using a HC stack to determine all possible variations
>based on what I remember, then I try one after the other. I still have
>several hundred to go :-(
If you don't care for the data, just pull both batteries. It can be done
with a minor amount of work.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Some bugs I had in some of my programs indicated otherwise. At least it
>doesn't complain about the lack of a default constructor if you specify no
>call to the inherited constructor.
Do you have any non-default constructors? If not, remember that a default
constructor is generated for you.
However, if you have virtual member functions, you must have a virtual
destructor -- even if it contains no code.
>Anyhow, I guess we're agreed on putting
>inherited and member constructors separate (just start a new line, should
>be enough).
Fine with me.
