home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!ads.com!saturn!doug
- From: doug@monet.ads.com (Doug Morgan)
- Subject: Re: Question About Code In ARM
- In-Reply-To: maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU's message of Wed, 20 Jan 1993 23:38:19 GMT
- Message-ID: <DOUG.93Jan21151105@monet.ads.com>
- Sender: usenet@ads.com (USENET News)
- Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mountain View, CA 94043, +1 (415)
- 960-7300
- References: <1993Jan20.014738.8501@ctp.com>
- <1993Jan20.233819.24771@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:11:05 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- In article <1993Jan20.233819.24771@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller) writes:
- In article <1993Jan20.014738.8501@ctp.com> dchen@ctp.com (Denys Chen) writes:
- >(In another word, can we remove ", public virtual W" ?)
- > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-
- Depends. The requirement "you can only initialise an
- immediate base"...
-
- Actually, the ARM statement (pg. 290) is "Initializers for immediate
- base classes ... may be specified in the definition of a constructor."
- It doesn't come right our and say ONLY immediate base classes can be
- initialized. Of course, the (supposedly superfluous) commentary seems
- to think this when it says "Disallowing the initialization of indirect
- bases...". In any case, someone (I think it was Stephen Clamage) said
- the (quasi-implied) restriction has been tossed from the latest
- version of the proposed standard.
-
- Hopefully the sections on virtual base classes for the final standard
- will be heavily edited by someone with a nack for logical expression
- in English. Those sections are really a mess in the ARM.
-
- --
- ;----------------------------------------------------------------------
- JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, maxtal@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
- Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
- ;------ SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ---ph: 2 799 8223 --------
-