Inhertiting QPtrList

[Cesar]

Correct me, if I'm mistaken, but this code

//DataList.h
template <typename  T>
class DataList : public QPtrList< T > {
 
public:
    DataList(){};
    // [Skip]
};

//DataList.h
template <typename  T>
class DataList : public QPtrList< T > {

public:
    DataList(){};
    // [Skip]
};

To copy to clipboard, switch view to plain text mode 

//DataList.cpp
template < typename T >
DataList<T>::DataList()
    :m_iLastError( QueryResult::ErrorNotSet ) {}
//[Skip]

//DataList.cpp
template < typename T >
DataList<T>::DataList()
    :m_iLastError( QueryResult::ErrorNotSet ) {}
//[Skip]

To copy to clipboard, switch view to plain text mode 

should lead to link error, as Datalist<T>::Datalist() is implemented twice: both in header and in .cpp files. I suggest something like this:

//DataList.h
template <typename  T>
class DataList : public QPtrList< T > {
public:
    DataList();
    // [Skip]
};
 
//DataList.cpp
template < typename T >
DataList<T>::DataList() :
    QPtrList<T>(), 
    m_iLastError( QueryResult::ErrorNotSet )
{
}
//[Skip]

//DataList.h
template <typename  T>
class DataList : public QPtrList< T > {
public:
    DataList();
    // [Skip]
};

//DataList.cpp
template < typename T >
DataList<T>::DataList() :
    QPtrList<T>(), 
    m_iLastError( QueryResult::ErrorNotSet )
{
}
//[Skip]

To copy to clipboard, switch view to plain text mode 

[sunil.thaha]

Correct me, if I'm mistaken, but this code

those Errors were resolved

//DataList.cpp
template < typename T >
DataList<T>::DataList() :
    QPtrList<T>(),
    m_iLastError( QueryResult::ErrorNotSet )
{
}
//[Skip]

//DataList.cpp
template < typename T >
DataList<T>::DataList() :
    QPtrList<T>(),
    m_iLastError( QueryResult::ErrorNotSet )
{
}
//[Skip]

To copy to clipboard, switch view to plain text mode 

But do we need to call the Base Constructor Explicity

[Cesar]

But do we need to call the Base Ponter Explicity

Hm... Frankly saying, I'm not sure, anyway that won't hurt . I suppose the behaviour is compiler-dependent, so doing something explicitly should make the code more portable... I guess

[sunil.thaha]

No I don't think so. I have read that When a DErived object is created, the Derived Construtor will call the default constructor of the Base