From: Vik Heyndrickx <Vik DOT Heyndrickx AT rug DOT ac DOT be>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Return Types for Constructors
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 11:02:38 +0100
Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <348BC5BE.2FF5@rug.ac.be>
References: <01bd0366$cfe6d140$d744e4cf AT cadvision DOT com> <66gd3q$7d AT freenet-news DOT carleton DOT ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eduserv1.rug.ac.be
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Paul Derbyshire wrote:
> 
> The dox on writing C++ I've read all seem to
> indicate you just don't specify any return type on constructors at all,
> and let the compiler take care of it, and the same for destructors.

I was wrong, you are right.
And saying that I'm experienced with C++ for 2 years now... where was I
with my mind?

The problem with the original poster probably lays in the class
definition. I think he specified something differently in that
definition. So posting that wouldn't be a bad idea.

-- 
 \ Vik /-_-_-_-_-_-_/   
  \___/ Heyndrickx /          
   \ /-_-_-_-_-_-_/