> > Oh, yes. Of course. That seems very reasonable, but it would require the > > base class to define a copy constructor. Is that a too hard requirement? > >not sure what you mean by a copy constructor, you mean taking defensive >copies? I wouldn't see that we'd need to go that far...
C++ terminology. :-) A constructor that has an argument of the same type as itself with the job to create a "copy" of that object. /Daniel _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-user
