Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mimsy!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!homxb!mhuxt!mhuxm!mhuxo!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: dumb question, probably
Message-ID: <7164@alice.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Aug-87 13:03:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.7164
Posted: Fri Aug  7 13:03:13 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Aug-87 08:42:56 EDT
References: <10120@orchid.waterloo.edu>
Distribution: comp
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
Lines: 38

In article <10120@orchid.waterloo.edu>, gamiddleton@orchid.UUCP writes:
> As far as I can tell, the following fragment should be (syntactically)
> correct:
> 
> 	class zot {
> 		int *x;
> 	public:
> 		zot( zot & );
> 		~zot() { delete x; }
> 	};
> 
> 	void zot::zot( zot &z ) {
> 		x = new (int);
> 		*x = *z.x;
> 	}

A constructor never returns a value, so one does not ever
declare the type of its value.  Thus one says

	class foo {
	public:
		foo();
	};

and not

	class foo {
	public:
		void foo();
	};

Similarly, one just writes

	foo::foo() { }

and not

	void foo::foo() { }