Home » Developing U++ » U++ Developers corner » why no virtual destructor for RegExp?
Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp? [message #38802 is a reply to message #38800] |
Sat, 19 January 2013 13:19   |
|
mirek wrote on Sat, 19 January 2013 12:03 | You are right. I think the author considers RegExp to be "sealed". Your contract is with public interface only.
Mirek
|
Hi guys,
What about updating the RegExp class? I personally would like it if it had ReplaceMatch(). As long as the addition doesn't break backward compatibility I don't see any reason not to add it. The class is definitely not 'sealed' for this, I remember adding the Study() method to it a while ago 
Navi, would you mind contributing your code to U++? 
Best regards,
Honza
|
|
|
 |
|
why no virtual destructor for RegExp?
By: navi on Sat, 19 January 2013 06:22
|
 |
|
Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp?
By: mirek on Sat, 19 January 2013 12:03
|
 |
|
Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp?
By: navi on Sat, 19 January 2013 12:30
|
 |
|
Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp?
|
 |
|
Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp?
By: navi on Sat, 19 January 2013 13:26
|
 |
|
Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp?
By: navi on Fri, 25 January 2013 14:58
|
 |
|
Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp?
By: navi on Fri, 25 January 2013 15:01
|
 |
|
Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp?
|
 |
|
Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp?
|
 |
|
Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp?
By: navi on Fri, 25 January 2013 17:37
|
 |
|
Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp?
|
 |
|
Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp?
By: navi on Mon, 28 January 2013 07:11
|
 |
|
Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp?
By: mirek on Tue, 19 February 2013 17:15
|
 |
|
Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp?
By: navi on Wed, 20 February 2013 00:23
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Jun 12 16:57:17 CEST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04068 seconds
|