Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)

["Martin Krischik" <Martin.Krischik@T-Online.de>]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:27:32 +0000, Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Martin Krischik wrote:
>> In fact you can't do this if you want virtual inlines.
> 
> Incorrect as well. You can have a virtual inline with the
> definition in the class:
>      struct a { virtual void foo() { } };

I tried that. The compiler won't say a thing - but the linker will be more
then upset. I might uf cource be dependen on the compiler.

> This is totally wrong - you really should learn more C++
> if you are going to make pronouncements about it. Inline
> functions don't require any separate definitions for being
> called indirectly, whether through the virtual table or by
> having their address taken. The compiler takes care of that.

I have 7 Years practical experience programming C++ - programming 8 hours
a day. But prehaps this discussiun shows less about yours and my
experience but more about the fact that no two C++ compilers are the same.

With Regards

Martin 

-- 
Martin Krischik
mailto://Martin@krischik.com
http://www.krischik.com