Keith Thompson wrote:
Je***********@physik.fu-berlin.de writes: E. Robert Tisdale <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: franco ziade wrote: what does this declaration mean?
class X {
public:
void function_name(void) const { }
};
This means that the function is constant? what is the implication?
You are probably reading C++ code.
It looks like a member function definition
taken out of the context of the class definition.
What's going on here? What Franco Ziade wrote was:
|| what does this declaration mean?
||
|| void function_name() const
|| {}
||
|| This means that the function is constant? what is the implication?
What you're "citing" has three lines that never were in the post by
Franco Ziade and of the rest you have "edited" one line. So why are
you (again) "citing" something that has never been posted?
If you look carefully, you'll see that ERT correctly marked the lines
he added. In this followup, the OP's line is marked with ">>>", and
the added lines with ">>" (though the original line didn't have the
"{ }" that ERT added to it). He could have been clearer about what
he was doing, though.
Yes, I was ready to castigate also. However on NS 4.7x quoted
material is in a different typeface than new material, so things
stand out better. I guess ERT does so many trollish things that we
are overly ready to discover another. Every time he shows signs of
reforming he seems to fall off the wagon again. But this is not a
fall :-)
--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson