Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="dragan, post: 3972869"] Whatever happened with projects to bring forth a standard C++ ABI. Itanium only? I would think that cross-platform interoperability is a larger concern. At least with a C ("POD") struct, you stand a chance at it looking the same in more than one machine. Not hardly so for classes (I mean with one using all the C++ "fancy" things). I understand all that and am accepting of it. I've probably encountered that, but I didn't "know" that. So are you retracting your statement that "convenience constructors" are allowed? OK, things are looking rosie then for C++0x. A good enough reason to drop the current lineup ASAP, IMO. Hopefully the C++0x goodies will start trickling into compilers even before "ratification" or whatever they call it. And that makes me a happy camper, cuz not allowing "convenience constructors" is a pet peave of mine. I saw/see no reason why it has to be without them, so now I know indeed there was no reason other than oversight. I would have assumed that the out-of-line Y::Y() would not allow "=default"! The question becomes: Why does it?! Hehe, so Scott Meyers can right more "Effective C++" books! (Great series by the way, but if it ever becomes contrived... oh nevermind). Alright. Maybe long ago when that stuck in my mind I had experienced the inline vs. online thing. But I get most of my information from books (and lately online) and "operators are FAAAST!" sticks in my mind, so I think I may have read it somewhere. It makes perfect sense to me that operators are no different than functions except for the obvious syntax. Oh well, could have been a brainfart. [/QUOTE]

Verification