[En-Nut-Discussion] Optimizing nutconf

[Harald Kipp]

Thiago A. Corrêa wrote:

> You know... I was almost going to rewrite the nutconf (nutconf2) using
> Qt, just for the fun of it. Doesn't seam too much work, since all of
> the "what to do and how" is already layed out in nutconf code.
> Qt code looks much better and shouldn't have so many issues on other
> platforms (Mac issues, now KDE).

I'd like to have your time, Thiago. ;-)

If you really want to do some Linux GUI work, why not try to fix the
wxWidget/GTK code for us? If you are able to run KDE4 like me or Gnome
2.24 like Ole, then you may be able to re-produce the seg-fault. My
experience with Unix GUI stuff ended in early X11 days. When looking to
the internal wxWidgets GTK stuff, I became totally puzzled.


>> IMHO it is not allowed to have both, a pure-specifier and the
>> definition. Although, the MS compiler accepted that statement. Do we
>> need the  declaration of the destructor at all?
> 
> Actually, destructors are a speciall case in pure virtual syntax, they
> must always have a body, and since the compiler won't generate one if
> you declare it, you must provide one. Probably the compiler has a bug
> with the inline body.

Sorry, that still doesn't make sense me. If you provide a body, why do
you need the pure-specifier then?

Harald