Re: Reserved identifiers as overridable virtual members?
"Christopher Conrade Zseleghovski" <kkz@duch.mimuw.edu.pl> skrev i
meddelandet news:e9u3v7$ri6$1@achot.icm.edu.pl...
"Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk> wrote:
""Victor Bazarov"" <v.Abazarov@comAcast.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:e9nths$ac$1@news.datemas.de...
Could it be that the warnings were
intended for the internal use and somehow leaked out? I would not
be surprised.
It *was* intended for their internal use, and was found to be so
good
that they couldn't even imagine anyone not wanting it on by
default.
Luckily, there is a setting to revert to Standard C++. The OP
should
just check the manual for the correct config macro.
Bo Persson
If I sought such an advice, I would have posted the question to
comp.lang.c++.moderated or, even more appropriate, paid $$$$ for
Microsoft Technical Support. (Although I must admit I find these
warnings useful myself).
My comments were directed to Victor, who hadn't seen MS' apologies in
other fora. They just hadn't considered the possiblity that people may
want to write strictly compliant code, and not have the warnings
enabled by default.
Please make a comment about virtual overridable member functions
with
reserved names. Is it all right to override them in user code?
I wouldn't know. The standard just reserves some names for the
implementation, it doesn't say how thses names are going to be used.
So your options seems to be to either use the interface defined by the
standard (and deal with the warnings), or use the implementation
specific interface and rely on the implementation's documentation.
Virtual functions are obviously designed to be overridden, so that
cannot be a problem in itself.
Bo Persson
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ]