www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | Vik Heyndrickx <Vik DOT Heyndrickx AT rug DOT ac DOT be> |
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Subject: | Re: Return Types for Constructors |
Date: | Mon, 08 Dec 1997 11:02:38 +0100 |
Organization: | University of Ghent, Belgium |
Lines: | 18 |
Message-ID: | <348BC5BE.2FF5@rug.ac.be> |
References: | <01bd0366$cfe6d140$d744e4cf AT cadvision DOT com> <66gd3q$7d AT freenet-news DOT carleton DOT ca> |
NNTP-Posting-Host: | eduserv1.rug.ac.be |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Paul Derbyshire wrote: > > The dox on writing C++ I've read all seem to > indicate you just don't specify any return type on constructors at all, > and let the compiler take care of it, and the same for destructors. I was wrong, you are right. And saying that I'm experienced with C++ for 2 years now... where was I with my mind? The problem with the original poster probably lays in the class definition. I think he specified something differently in that definition. So posting that wouldn't be a bad idea. -- \ Vik /-_-_-_-_-_-_/ \___/ Heyndrickx / \ /-_-_-_-_-_-_/
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |