[PATCH] Setup.exe in a property sheet
Wed Dec 19 02:26:00 GMT 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <email@example.com>
> > It's known as the Big Three Rule. The rule is that if a object needs
> > one of the three (destructor, copy con, assignment) it needs all
> > The destructor connection is because the _only_ time an object needs
> > non-synthetic destructor is to clean up remote storage/OS objects
> > and therefore the same cleanup/management is needed on
> AH, ok, I get it: if you *need* a non-default copy and/or operator=,
> need a non-default destructor or you're almost assuredly doing
> That sounds like it would make a good compiler warning.
And the converse. If you *need* a non-default destructor, you need the
other two, or...
That said, if you implement a non-default destructor, implement the
other two, as a matter of paranoia and code maintenance. The usual
exceptions (i.e. it's just an ABC) aren't worth the headache when
something changes badly.
> It just goes to prove what I always say, "You learn something every
> you're not careful". ;-)
> > This class will be derived
> > from
> > > std::string when I get gcc to find the $&%^ing header, which will
> > course make
> > > it tremendously more functional.
> > Yes, it seems to be absent from the winsup tree :}.
> But I do have it. I've got it in /usr/include/g++-3/string. Same
> with the cstdlib that inilex.cc needs but gcc can't find, and yet I'm
> the only one with problems there. It's fricken driving me insane in
> proverbial membrane.
I've got it in /usr too - but it's not in /usr/src/src/ (where my cygwin
src tree is rooted).
> That's just not possible if the modal-ness is all in the constructor.
> you really think it's necessary, it's certainly easy enough to do a
> that would take a template ID and a modal/modeless flag, but I don't
see how you
> can't help but lose the ability to do that stuff inbetween class
> creation and window+message loop creation, and I think that alone is
> important, let alone the error considerations etc.
The error consideration is (to me) minor, compared to the programming
model & design. The design point you make is good. Leave it as is.
> Just to clarify, did you want me to get this diffed against the latest
> you check any of it in? There's only one or two files that are diffed
> non-current HEAD to my knowledge, but I can sure do it, but I'll need
a hint as
> to how I can do a "cvs update" without bringing back a bunch of stuff
> need to cut right back out again. Or am I SOL and I'll just have to
do it by
It's a hand job mate.
Update CVS and fix - I have to after other patches go in too ya know :}.
Don't worry about diffing against another directory though: just attach
the new .cc and .h files as-is and only diff the extant files.
More information about the Cygwin-patches