On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 03:38:23PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > It might even be that I am dead wrong.... and what I am remembering is > > string s(); // error
Sure, this declares a function called s, taking no args, returning a string. Rule is 'if it can be read as a function declaration, it is one' (even though local functions do not really exist *sigh*) The 'new' version is formally ok, though. It can't be mistaken for a function declaration. [I prefer the version without parantheses there, too.] Andre'
