Hi, On Mon, 2 May 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> At the same time, if the code in question doesn't mean what the person > who wrote it wants it to mean (e.g., if it implicitly declares classes > in the scope of the friendly class, rather than nominating other classes > as friends), then that code should still be fixed. No disagreement from me here. > It's certainly in the long-term interest of KDE not to have spurious > friend declarations around, and I'd expect that as a KDE distributor you > would want to encourage them to use the syntax that means what they > want, even in parallel to possibly fixing the compiler. Yep. /us fighting in many places ;-) Ciao, Michael.
