Re: [xsd-users] no abstract base classes with "Customizing the generated type — the complex case"

[Oliver Schneider]

Hi Boris,

Two things occurred to me after a good night's sleep:

> Or do you want all "base" classes that result from type customization
> to be abstract? If so, I am not 100% sure: it doesn't have to be
> derived from. Someone, for example, could use it as a member.

Aren't the *_base classes of complex types required to have a derived
class, even without any abstract (base) classes around?
Or would it be legal to define the _impl class without any base class
and just implement the constructors?

I just manually edited the person.cxx and .hxx files. I made all the
_clone functions in the .hxx file pure virtual, and removed the
implementation in the cxx file, works like a charm.

/Oliver