On Mar 3, 2006, at 7:45 PM, Thomas Cunningham wrote:
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. ;)
I hope that you had a chance to read Joe Strout's latest post on this
topic. He goes into a lot of detail and I think his explanation is
quite good. He shoots down my suggestion of a Warning and for good
reasons... well take a look if you haven't already.
_______________________________________________
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>
