🚀 go-pugleaf

This:
class derived : public base {
  public:
   derived()  :  base() {}  //What the hell does this line of

is the same as this:
class derived : public base {
  public:
   derived() {}

which is the same as this:
class derived : public base {

It is just doing what the compiler would do behind the covers anyway.
I can think of no reason for someone to actually write that code.
Perhaps it is unfinished, or perhaps there was more there that got
removed, or perhaps someone was just experimenting?  It's rather
confusing to look at syntactically - if you have the option I would
remove it.


In article <38436F07.55AD215F@netvigator.com>,
  Bruce Lai <arraylai@netvigator.com> wrote:
>     Hello great programmers, I got a question here. Please take a look
> at the code below.
>
>     class derived : public base {
>         public:
>             derived()  :  base() {}  //What the hell does this line of
> code do?
>     }
>
> I see this kind of declaration in an example of OWL programming and in
> the case derived is TDrawApp and base is TApplication.
>
> Well, something out of the content but I saw this in my C++ book and I
> can't make clear of them:
>
>     int *(*(*ifunct_ptr)(int))[5];
>     float (*(*ffunct_ptr)(int,int))(float);
>     typedef double (*(*(*dfunct_ptr)())[5])();
>     (*(*funtion_ary_ptrs())[5])();
>     int func() const;
>
> Anyone can help me clarify them? I'd prefer a copy of reply to my
email
> box as well. THANKS!!
> --
> Bruce Lai
> Email: arraylai@netvigator.com
> ICQ: 13949789 (scrop)
>
>

--
Regards,
Jeff


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.