Re: [RFC] Vote results for default ctors RFC

On 25/01/15 08:07, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > I think not bothering to > discuss and then just voting "no" with no explanation is not how the > healthy RFC process should be working. One thought I had was 'Why would I be adding a constructor is the parent did not require one?' Personally I would prefer - like with other strict element - that if I am overriding something which does not currently exist I get a warning. If the base library 'improves' things by adding one then I also need to know, so silently hiding it just seems wrong! The bug in my 'update from 5.2 crib sheet is NOT adding the constructor to the parent, and that is my starting point even if it's just an empty shell. As other e_strict additions often turn out. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk