On wtorek 01 kwiecień 2003 09:29 am, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Kuba Ober wrote:
> > I guess that for all practical matters it's all about whether one wants
> > to refer to member variables as
> >
> > m_emergencyExit // m_ prepended
> >
> > or as
> >
> > this->emergencyExit
> >
> > I guess getting rid
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 03:34:13PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| > Right. And with gcc this will be version 3.4.
| >
| > Due this fall or something.
| >
| > Thanks for finding all these nice ansers.
|
| Well, I still didn't see a rationale :)
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 03:34:13PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> Right. And with gcc this will be version 3.4.
>
> Due this fall or something.
>
> Thanks for finding all these nice ansers.
Well, I still didn't see a rationale :)
john
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Actually, we'd better get used to this because compilers will eventually
| start insisting we do so. Here's the definitive answer posted by "White
| Wolf" on comp.lang.c++:
Right. And with gcc this will be version 3.4.
Due this fall or something.
T
Kuba Ober wrote:
> I guess that for all practical matters it's all about whether one wants to
> refer to member variables as
>
> m_emergencyExit // m_ prepended
>
> or as
>
> this->emergencyExit
>
> I guess getting rid of m_blah pollution (in case of my own code, at least)
> from the class decl
On czwartek 27 marzec 2003 07:00 pm, Angus Leeming wrote:
> On Thursday 27 March 2003 11:55 pm, John Levon wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:42:29PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > > template
> > > class B : public T
> > > {
> > > public:
> > > void foo()
> > > {
> > >
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 12:00:06AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Me neither and nor, it would appear do the folks on comp.lang.c++. Point your
> news reader there and have a look at the thread
> Why is "this->member_variable" better code than "member_variable"?
Looked.
So it must be a str
On Thursday 27 March 2003 11:55 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:42:29PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > template
> > class B : public T
> > {
> > public:
> > void foo()
> > {
> > if (emergency_exit)
> > ...
> > }
> > };
> >
> > >
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:42:29PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> template
> class B : public T
> {
> public:
> void foo()
> {
> if (emergency_exit)
> ...
> }
> };
>
> > And how would "this->" assist in telling the
> > compiler that it is from the
> | > | Are you saying that member variables must now be accessed with an
> | > | explicit "this->" ? Or only those in base classes? Or only those in
> | > | template classes?
> | >
> | > base classes.
> |
> | Templatized base classes though ? Or something. I'd love to see an
> | explanation (and
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 10:31:14PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
|
| > | Are you saying that member variables must now be accessed with an explicit
| > | "this->" ? Or only those in base classes? Or only those in template
| > | classes?
| >
| > base
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 10:31:14PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
> | Are you saying that member variables must now be accessed with an explicit
> | "this->" ? Or only those in base classes? Or only those in template
> | classes?
>
> base classes.
Templatized base classes though ? Or someth
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | - if (emergency_exit_) {
| > | + if (this->emergency_exit_) {
| > |
| > | For the love of God, WHY? Lars, the latest and greatest doesn't
| > | necessarily mean that it's right. This is clearly ridiculous.
| >
| >
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | - if (emergency_exit_) {
| > | + if (this->emergency_exit_) {
| > |
| > | For the love of God, WHY? Lars, the latest and greatest doesn't
| > | necessarily mean that it's right. This is clearly ridiculous.
| >
| >
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | - if (emergency_exit_) {
> | + if (this->emergency_exit_) {
> |
> | For the love of God, WHY? Lars, the latest and greatest doesn't
> | necessarily mean that it's right. This is clearly ridiculous.
>
> According to how the gurus interpret the C++ standard, this
ied files:
| > lyx-devel/src/: ChangeLog lyxgluelength.h lyxlength.h text2.C
| > lyx-devel/src/frontends/controllers/: ChangeLog
| > ControlDialog.tmpl
| >
| > Log message:
| > fix some C++ parsing bugs
|
| - if (emergency_exit_) {
| + if (this->emergency_exit_) {
|
| F
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> CVSROOT: /usr/local/lyx/cvsroot
> Module name: lyx-devel
> Repository: lyx-devel/src/frontends/controllers/
> Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/03/27 18:38:24
>
> Modified files:
> lyx-devel/src/: ChangeLog lyxgluelength.h lyxlength.
17 matches
Mail list logo
