Re: [RFC] Default constructors

Hi! > However, I thought about one more inconsistent. Your patch works fine > for "parent::" methods but not for "grandparents::" > In the following code "default constructor" won't work. Yes, this is OK - the support is only for one pattern, calling the parent, because it's what you're supposed to do. If you do anything else, it would work (or not work) as before since it's not the best practice so you're on your own. > It's not a big problem to fix implementation to support it, or may be > support for "parent::" is enough. > Anyway, it should be reflected in RFC (if this code should work or > should not). Sure, I'll add a note on RFC about it. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com