Yet again I'm sorry to see that yet another serious (as in SEGV) bug is due to the fact that people can't keep their fingers from baseclass data, and class designers still insist on putting class data in a protected or public section. This bug possibly surfaced since I'm using a compiler that initializes uninitialized memory to an illegal address value that is != 0. Need I mention it? Somewhere it has been read and used. Unfortunately, the call location seems to be several hundred words down the call stack (meaning at least 1KB) why I currently haven't pinpointed it. This one connects nicely to what was posted about a week ago "always initialize class data". I'm also somewhat surprised that the part of my rant about maintenance nightmares and such some six months ago - regarding "class data shall be private" - didn't make it into the guidelines. I personally consider any other protection to be a bug, design error, or a deliberate offensive action. IIRC that part didn't get opposition strong enough to have been withheld from the guidelines, why I'm thinking that it perhaps just was forgotten? And while speaking about the guidelines doc: 8. I'd like to append to the first sentence in " in cross-platform code and in the interfaces between XP and platform specific code" (or something in that spirit). In non-XP code you most certainly need to use OS native datatypes. Reasonable? /Mike - please don't cc
