[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kfm-devel
Subject:    Re: Win32 Port of Safari
From:       Luis Pedro Coelho <luis_pedro () netcabo ! pt>
Date:       2003-01-09 12:27:27
[Download RAW message or body]

Em Quinta 09 Janeiro 2003 05:23, Alan Gutierrez escreveu:
> Oh, yes! VC++ has bugs! But it has caught a couple of stucts that were
> predeclared as classes, for example

There is a thread in comp.std.c++ called "Forward declaration of a class as a 
struct" at (sorry about the long URL):

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=pt-PT&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=23b84d65.020516 \
1115.2947ac09%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522forward%2Bdeclaratio \
n%2522%2Bstruct%2Bclass%26hl%3Dpt-PT%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D23b84d65.0205161115.2947ac09%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D1


<quote from="URL above">

> > Is it legal to do a forward declaration of a class as struct (or
> > vice versa)? 
> > i.e. is the following code legal: 
> > struct A;
> > class A; 
> > It is accepted by GCC 2.95 and GCC 3.0; VC++ 6.0 gives a warning.
> > What does the standard say?

That it is legal.  Both key words, class and struct, define a class --
there is no such thing as a struct in C++.

</quote>

Anyway, there is a more important question here. How far should KHTML's code 
be changed to work around VC++'s bugs ? I would say not far at all. It can be 
used as a tool to uncover bugs or an overreliance on gccisms but should not, 
at this point, be considered a supported compiler.

Just my .02 euro,
-- 
Luis Pedro Coelho

http://blogs.salon.com/0001523


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]