On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:05:16 -0700, Erick Tryzelaar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Phil Thompson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The virtuals aren't valid, but the super-classes should be. Fixed in
tonight's snapshot.
Thanks again for the change, Phil. I think you might
On 29.07.08 16:05:16, Erick Tryzelaar wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Phil Thompson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The virtuals aren't valid, but the super-classes should be. Fixed in
tonight's snapshot.
Thanks again for the change, Phil. I think you might be mistaken on
this point
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Phil Thompson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's the virtual constructors that are invalid, not virtual methods.
Oh, duh. I didn't even notice that I did that. Next time I'll copy
real code instead of rewriting it for email.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Phil Thompson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The virtuals aren't valid, but the super-classes should be. Fixed in
tonight's snapshot.
Thanks again for the change, Phil. I think you might be mistaken on
this point though. Looking at the c++ standard that I found:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:12:15 -0700, Erick Tryzelaar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got a simple sip file that has:
struct Foo {
%TypeHeaderCode
#include foo.h
%End
virtual Foo();
};
struct Bar: Foo {
%TypeHeaderCode
#include foo.h
%End
virtual Bar();
};
That should
On Wednesday 16 July 2008 16:12, Erick Tryzelaar wrote:
I've got a simple sip file that has:
struct Foo {
%TypeHeaderCode
#include foo.h
%End
virtual Foo();
};
struct Bar: Foo {
%TypeHeaderCode
#include foo.h
%End
virtual Bar();
};
That should be valid code though, right?
