AW: AW: AW: Binaries for Windows NT

[Fischer, Björn Christoph]

> On Thursday 26 September 2002 23:41, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> > Component is an abstract class, so return by Value is impossible and
> > illegal, gcc doesn't catch this and since all those 
> operator=() stuff
> > placed there in a hurry nobody noticed this. For all 
> abstract classes
> > the operator=() can be removed.
> 
> Well, the real bug is that I created all those operator=() 
> wrong - the 
> correct way is to return a reference to the class. Declaring 
> operator=() may 
> be required for abstract classes too since noone stops you 
> from having 
> abstract classes with data members. A derived class then must call 
> operator=() of the abstract base class in it's own operator=().
> Just changing the return value to Component& (not const &) 
> should remove the 
> compile errors for good.
> I'll do this for every operator=() very soon anyway so a 
> little bit of 
> waiting will remove the work for you. ;-)

That sounds great :-) 
But what about the snprintf/_snprintf error? Can we do a workaround using
something like 

#ifdef Win32
        _snprintf 
#else
        snprintf
#endif

? Is that possible?

And another general question: How about bug fixes? All to Ingo, or who has
rights to commit to CVS?

Greetings

Björn