[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
AW: AW: AW: Binaries for Windows NT
From: |
Fischer, Björn Christoph |
Subject: |
AW: AW: AW: Binaries for Windows NT |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:36:12 +0200 |
> On Thursday 26 September 2002 23:41, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> > Component is an abstract class, so return by Value is impossible and
> > illegal, gcc doesn't catch this and since all those
> operator=() stuff
> > placed there in a hurry nobody noticed this. For all
> abstract classes
> > the operator=() can be removed.
>
> Well, the real bug is that I created all those operator=()
> wrong - the
> correct way is to return a reference to the class. Declaring
> operator=() may
> be required for abstract classes too since noone stops you
> from having
> abstract classes with data members. A derived class then must call
> operator=() of the abstract base class in it's own operator=().
> Just changing the return value to Component& (not const &)
> should remove the
> compile errors for good.
> I'll do this for every operator=() very soon anyway so a
> little bit of
> waiting will remove the work for you. ;-)
That sounds great :-)
But what about the snprintf/_snprintf error? Can we do a workaround using
something like
#ifdef Win32
_snprintf
#else
snprintf
#endif
? Is that possible?
And another general question: How about bug fixes? All to Ingo, or who has
rights to commit to CVS?
Greetings
Björn