On Sun, 2007-06-24 at 19:37 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: > On 6/24/07, Timothy Brownawell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-06-24 at 10:30 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > > Do the clone() methods for dir_node and file_node do anything that the > > > respective copy constructors wouldn't do? > > > > They're virtual functions, which means that you can call clone() on a > > node* (which will actually point to a dir_node or file_node), and get a > > new dir_node or file_node as appropriate. Using a copy constructor > > directly means that you have to know in advance what type you're trying > > to get. > > I should have been clearer. *Other than that*, is there any difference?
Other than that, no, there shouldn't be a difference. -- Timothy Free (experimental) public monotone hosting: http://mtn-host.prjek.net _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
