Jonathan Polley writes: > This brings about the philosophical question, Is is possible to work > around ALL MSVC bugs?
I'm pretty sure that people are successfully building FlightGear already with MSVC 6. > I also don't like the name space problems that #defines cause, especially > when it forces the programmer to mangle the names in order to avoid > conflicts. My guess as to what is happening here is that MSVC is deciding > to make the enum dynamic rather than static. Since it is dynamic, the > compiler does not believe that it can know the value of MAX_MOUSE_BUTTONS > at compile time and will make a function call to determine its value > instead. I am use to seeing this behavior with brain dead Ada compilers. That's interesting. The enum is a declaration, not a definition. > I suppose I could check myself, but do you know of any other instances of > this construct in the code? Since this is the only complaint I got from > the compiler, it would be interesting to see where MSVC liked the > construct to see if I could find out why. There's another, public enum earlier in input.hxx. I can make the second enum protected if that helps the compiler. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
