25 Jul
2009
25 Jul
'09
8:34 p.m.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Robert Ramey
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Robert Ramey
wrote: would be equivalent to ar >> *m_x in which case the "const" would be violated.
At the time the object needs to be instantiated and read, instead of dealing with a T const * p as: p=new T; ar >> *p; what's wrong with: T * tmp=new T; ar >> * tmp; p=tmp; ? Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode