linker errors with class
no at spam.invalid
Sun Oct 26 21:20:44 PDT 2008
Mike Parker wrote:
> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>> No, it shouldn't. You may implement function bodies in other modules
>> and/or languages (in C, for example, just make sure names have proper
> Right, but it just feels wrong to me for constructors & destructors
> since they are a required part of the class. Either you implement one or
> you don't, but simply declaring one without an implementation feels like
> an error to me.
Without this feature, .di files wouldn't work. The advantage is that
functions without bodies are faster for the compiler to parse, when it
it's not going to compile them anyway. You can also use it for hiding
implementation, if you don't want your source to be available.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn