From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-18 05:12:50
> From: "John Maddock" <jm_at_[hidden]>
> > On the issue of exception classes: why would you think that the derived
> > class could possibly use a different calling convention to the base
> > for a virtual function?
> The problem is that standard-conforming code (a class that derives from
> std::exception) does not compile under bcc 5.5.1 -ps.
Accepted, but -ps is a non standard-conforming calling convention, so again
what do you expect? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we shouldn't
protect our code against this, just that users shouldn't be surprised if
things break when the compiler is in a non-standard mode.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk