Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ulysses!hector!jss
From: jss@hector.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: address of virtual function (revisited)
Message-ID: <11528@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: 13 May 89 23:08:57 GMT
References: <904@garya.Solbourne.COM> <6590121@hplsla.HP.COM> <205@riunite.ACA.MCC.COM>
Sender: netnews@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com
Reply-To: jss@hector.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 21

In article <205@riunite.ACA.MCC.COM> rfg@riunite.UUCP (Ron Guilmette) writes:
>
>If you are really getting hassled for simply trying to get some facts
>about cfront 2.0 out in the broad daylight, then that is obviously a
>travesty.  

This is exactly the problem.  There are no "facts about 2.0" because
2.0 does not yet exist.  This is not facetious, many of the questions
people have about detailed coding issues have only recently been
settled.

It is also not completely hypothetical.  Its pretty clear (from the
earlier items in this discussion)  Ron has wanted to say "2.0 never
inlines calls to virtual members, even when it should know which
version is required".

But since the current version on my system does do such inlining
it seems likely that this will not be true of 2.0.  

Jerry Schwarz
AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill