Re: [sv-bc] Question on pure virtual function

From: Steven Sharp <sharp_at_.....>
Date: Tue Oct 07 2008 - 11:59:20 PDT
>Well, there generally isn't a very good reason to have the
>base class defined after the derived class in the same section
>of code so I would consider that to be at least bad style.

That "at least" suggests that you might consider it to be invalid code.
Has there been discussion of whether it should be illegal to derive
from a base class for which you have only seen a forward declaration?

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Tue Oct 7 12:22:01 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 07 2008 - 12:22:30 PDT