why member functions not virtual???

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Daniel Jia (xilin++at++cagiva.cambridge.com)
Thu, 2 May 1996 15:01:49 -0400


A basic question about Performer: Why aren't most member functions declared as
virtual so that new types can be easily derived from the existing ones?

Please reply via email. Thanks.


New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:52:52 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.