Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!akguc!mtunh!mtuni!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!mat
From: mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c++
Subject: cfront working too hard?
Message-ID: <1202@mtx5a.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Feb-86 13:12:40 EST
Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1202
Posted: Thu Feb 20 13:12:40 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Feb-86 06:25:33 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801.
Lines: 29

In compiling a base class b with virtual function v, I declare

	virtual int
	b::v( b* bp )
	{
		return 0;
	}

where the intent is that derived classes may have good use for bp, but
the base class represents a null case.

cfront naturally warns about the unused argument.

	Is this excessive in the case of a virtual function?  Is there
a syntax (such as omitting ``bp'') that will allow me to say ``I know
that an argument is passed, but I don't need it'' ?  With virtuals, this
might be a common situation.

	As usual, if this could better have been handled by private mail,
sill someone please let me know?

						Mark T.
-- 

	from Mole End			Mark Terribile
		(scrape .. dig )	mtx5b!mat
					(Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a!
						mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat)
    ,..      .,,       ,,,   ..,***_*.