From -1651474383268633668 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,a4f3c15d97de4122 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-07-12 09:15:01 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail From: jpotter@falcon.lhup.edu (John Potter) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Why don't constructors and destructors have return types? Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:14:14 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ Message-ID: <3d2ed647.11890000@207.217.77.25> References: <3D1FB54B.FFDC9969@bawi.org> <3d209e70.1346875@news.earthlink.net> <3d21c520.27573671@news.earthlink.net> <3d24ccd3.20691953@news.earthlink.net> <7uvaiug6ionjvtmhp8lks5k8s9qvdo12i5@4ax.com> <3d25e7c0.34024125@news.earthlink.net> <3d2c4170.15685078@207.217.77.25> Reply-To: jpotter@penguin.lhup.edu X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1026490458 mail2news:2341 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mail2News-Path: news.demon.net!mulga.cs.mu.oz.au X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 06:19:24 PDT Lines: 47 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.std.c++:12669 There are three only slightly related topics in the article. I have split replies with appropriate subjects. I will be off line for a month and will check to see anyone else has anything to say then. On 12 Jul 2002 02:58:39 GMT, Gennaro Prota wrote: > >> Suppose that constructors are not functions > >Let's see if we can end this nonsense. I started with a statement > >that it is debatable and that it is a semantics game. > >free function > >static member function > >non-static member function > >copy assignment operator > >destructor > >default constructor > >copy constructor > >other constructor > >I choose to call the first four functions and the others function-like > >because they do not have certain properties of functions. You choose > >to call them all functions with possible subcategories of normal and > >wierd. I see no point in trying to justify either. They are both > >useful for understanding certain things. > I don't understand why it should be "useful" to consider them > non-functions. To understand certain things. What things? Q. Subject of article. A. Because they are not functions. Q. Why are they not functions. A. Because they do not have return types. There are no loose ends in that circle. ;-) If you want a formal ruling, maybe someone else will provide one. John --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]