On 02/01/13 10:11, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> C++11 has a specific syntax to achieve mostly the same effect more
> cleanly:
>
> OXMLCell& operator =(const OXMLCell&) = delete;
>
> That's slightly better since it tells the compiler that this class
> should have *no* assignment operator. So any
On Wednesday 02 of January 2013, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> C++11 has a specific syntax to achieve mostly the same effect more
> cleanly:
>
> OXMLCell& operator =(const OXMLCell&) = delete;
>
> That's slightly better since it tells the compiler that this class
> should have *no* assignment opera
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 09:58:30PM +0100, Julien Nabet wrote:
> On 30/12/2012 21:48, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
>>>Cppcheck reported this:
>>>[reportdesign/source/filter/xml/xmlComponent.hxx:37]: (style)
>>>'OXMLComponent::operator=' should return 'OXMLComponent&'.
>>>[reportdesign/source/filter/xml/x
On 30/12/2012 21:48, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
Hey,
Cppcheck reported this:
[reportdesign/source/filter/xml/xmlComponent.hxx:37]: (style)
'OXMLComponent::operator=' should return 'OXMLComponent&'.
[reportdesign/source/filter/xml/xmlFunction.hxx:41]: (style)
'OXMLFunction::operator=' should return
Hey,
> Cppcheck reported this:
> [reportdesign/source/filter/xml/xmlComponent.hxx:37]: (style)
> 'OXMLComponent::operator=' should return 'OXMLComponent &'.
> [reportdesign/source/filter/xml/xmlFunction.hxx:41]: (style)
> 'OXMLFunction::operator=' should return 'OXMLFunction &'.
> [reportdesign/s
ng to fix these, I noticed that none of them was implemented. So can
they just be removed, is it another C++ "trick", or something obvious I
missed?
Julien
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Question-about-oper
