DM> I do believe that my electronic tax package from last year 
DM> had a 16-bit Win3.1 version.  Of course, those are changed 
DM> yearly, so I assume that there is still some 16-bit 
DM> development going on :-)

That amazes me. It will be of interest to see how long this practice 
continues.

DM>> ClassB::ClassB( ClassAptr aaa ) :
DM>>     abc(aaa)
DM>> {
DM>> }

NH> I'm completely unfamiliar with this notation when used in a
NH> constructor.   Does this mean that the programmer will
NH> ultimately be responsible for  making a constructor
NH> specifically for this situation?

About 2 hours after I had sent this response, I remembered posing an 
almost identical question to you about 7 years ago.  That question dealt 
with the base-class initialization list.  Thanks for the reminder.  
Needless to say, I haven't used the construct at all... although I now 
can see there is a real reason to do so (speed).

BTW, is this methodology used often?

þ CMPQwk 1.42 999

--- Maximus/2 3.01