On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 09:56:51AM -0700, yary wrote:
> I just saw the intent for this in the " split up compilation of the
> setting" thread- that it is useful to:
> >Enable a "class stub" syntax that allows us to declare a given symbol
> > as being a valid class without having to declare the body of the
> > class at that time. For example:
> >
> > class Rat { ... };
>
> I can agree with that so long as the "yada" is the only token inside
> the brackets. On the other hand why not go along with C convention and
> allow
>
> class Rat;
We can't use this one -- it already means something different
(namely, that the rest of the file is the specification for class Rat).
Pm
