> Well, then there are also virtual functions which do not have any > code in them by definition... intended to be implemented by the > subclasses.
Yes, good point. But, an error message could be easily avoided in this case - a virtual routine has no code. ;-) Implementation details aside, I'm still on the side of fence that says Rb should always attempt to help fools like me that many times forget to *return* something in our functions. ;) -- Thomas C. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
