Quote:Original post by raptorstrike
I was wondering if this was a good idea, it works and seems flexible but could possibly lead to confusion and might just be bad form which is what Im here, to find out...
Well, I think that what you are trying to do is a good idea, but the way you propose accomplishing it is not very practical. I think the idea of naming the contructors and destructor functions using the name of the class has problems. I would have preferred the names of the constructors and destructor be "constructor" and "destructor".
Along the same lines, this kind of thing is common:
class foo : public bar { typedef bar BaseClass; ... };