🚀 go-pugleaf

law@solution-frameworks.com wrote:
>In <47e529$ha8@news.vcd.hp.com>, Marco Dalla Gasperina
><Marco_Dalla-Gasperina@HP-Vancouver-om1.om.hp.com> writes:
>>If you restrict yourself to "static virtual" functions, you are restricted
>>to not calling any functions at all.  The construct is an oxymoron.
>
>We're talking about the C++ standard here, so the whole thing is a
>figment of your imagination.  Imagine "static virtual" functions, if you
>can.  They're no more oxymoronic than, say, member function templates.
>
>Surely you're not suggesting the concept is self-contradictory?
>

Have you, in a fit of insanity, sent a love letter to someone that you've
only been out with once?  Then, about an hour later after you realize what
you've done, tried to somehow get the letter out of the mailbox?

Well, mia massima cupla.  I forgot that you can call a static member through
a pointer (although I don't think I've ever used it).

Carry one with your regularly scheduled program.


>Bill



---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]