> Nice. Was there a reason to put consts? Does it improve anything except > making c++ funs happy? It is OK if you introduce non-compatible changes > which can be easily seen when you recompile your code but in the case of > const a compiler does not issue any warning on const and non-const > "overloaded" functions. It is Ok if a user plays with one class and can > easily see that someting is going wrong at run time. Unfortunately some > people develop more complex things. Anton, I was arguing for this change pretty strongly. I still stand by it, and you can go back in the archive to my old messages to see my arguments why. I don't know what compiler you are using. I assume you're not using a Sun CC compiler, because I know that that compiler DOES warn in this case. If you are using g++, it will not warn you by default. However, you can make it generate a warning, which is not turned on even by with -Wall (makes you wonder why it's still called -Wall, but I digress): -Woverloaded-virtual should give you warnings about the base class functions being hidden. Good luck, George Heintzelman georgeh@aya.yale.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 08 2001 - 11:51:21 MEST