--> Frank Adam wrote to Cliff Rhodes <--
FA>to I've been thinking about this for a while, is there a technical
FA>reason why constructors are not able to return a value ?
Actually they implicitly return a pointer to themselves.
Many times, the compiler calls constructors behind the scenes when 
testing some return value would not be practical anyway. For instance, 
if you use an object as a function argument, it is copied via the copy 
constructor, but there is no way for you to use a return value. 
I think, for this reason, and because constructors for built in types 
don't return a value, it was decided that ctors shouldn't rely on a 
returned value.
Maybe Jerry knows the exact rationale?
Cliff Rhodes
cliff.rhodes@juge.com
crhodes@flash.net
X CMPQwk 1.42 1692 X"Our insignificance is often the cause of our safety." - 
Aesop
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------