Re: confused g++ err msg 'deprecated conversion from string constantto char*'
John Harrison wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>Just inheriting and (implicit) using the CKR6 ctor can't be the error,
>>>>can it?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, it can, because before the derived classes are initialized, all the
>>>bases are initialized first. So, the ctro for a derived is something[/color]
>>[/color]
> like
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>this:
>>>
>>>struct base {
>>>base () {} };
>>>
>>>struct derived: base {
>>>derived (): base(base()) { } };
>>>
>>>The ctor for derived expands to something like this:
>>>
>>>derived () { this->base = base (); }
>>>
>>>HTH,
>>>-Dhruv.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>OK that makes sense.
>>But what can I do to avid errors here?
>>
>>Does it suffice to 'pre'initialize the base class?
>>
>>like
>> main(){
>>static base myBase( "ttyS0" );
>>derived myDerived( 2.0 )
>> }
>>
>>I'll try that ...
>>[/color]
>
>
> I think you've misunderstood Dhruv. There's no need to 'preinitialise' a
> base class. I think Dhruv was just trying to point out that you are
> implicitly calling the base class ctor, something you knew already I think.
>
> john
>
>[/color]
Yes I knew that :-) but that does not solve my problem.
John Harrison wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>Just inheriting and (implicit) using the CKR6 ctor can't be the error,
>>>>can it?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, it can, because before the derived classes are initialized, all the
>>>bases are initialized first. So, the ctro for a derived is something[/color]
>>[/color]
> like
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>this:
>>>
>>>struct base {
>>>base () {} };
>>>
>>>struct derived: base {
>>>derived (): base(base()) { } };
>>>
>>>The ctor for derived expands to something like this:
>>>
>>>derived () { this->base = base (); }
>>>
>>>HTH,
>>>-Dhruv.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>OK that makes sense.
>>But what can I do to avid errors here?
>>
>>Does it suffice to 'pre'initialize the base class?
>>
>>like
>> main(){
>>static base myBase( "ttyS0" );
>>derived myDerived( 2.0 )
>> }
>>
>>I'll try that ...
>>[/color]
>
>
> I think you've misunderstood Dhruv. There's no need to 'preinitialise' a
> base class. I think Dhruv was just trying to point out that you are
> implicitly calling the base class ctor, something you knew already I think.
>
> john
>
>[/color]
Yes I knew that :-) but that does not solve my problem.
Comment