home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: quadostimpy.natinst.com!user
- From: rcauvin@natinst.com (Roger L. Cauvin)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: Pure Virtual Destructor Question
- Date: 19 Feb 1996 14:58:26 GMT
- Organization: National Instruments
- Message-ID: <rcauvin-0802960903220001@quadostimpy.natinst.com>
- References: <4fas7a$7ns@comet2.magicnet.net> <4fecq0$k4e@news4.digex.net> <rcauvin-0902960901140001@quadostimpy.natinst.com> <4fp5r2$dm2@news4.digex.net> <rcauvin-0602960913040001@quadostimpy.natinst.com> <4fqmp5$pbi@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov> <4g8cds$7do@news4.digex.net>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: quadostimpy.natinst.com
-
- In article <4g8cds$7do@news4.digex.net>, ell@access4.digex.net (Ell) wrote:
-
- > : > All that abstractness
- > : > implies is that it is not appropriate to instantiate an object of the
- > : > class directly, since the class is incompletely defined.
- >
- > I'll stick with the ARM and DWP on this one.
-
- ...
-
- > Again, I'll stick with the ARM and DWP on what is or isn't an "abstract
- > class".
-
- It doesn't matter. Either way you're wrong.
-
- Assuming the conceptual definition of "abstract class", there is no
- inconsistency between the C++ programming language's treatment of pure
- virtual destructors and other pure virtual member functions. In either
- case, a class may conceptually be abstract in the sense that it is not
- intended to be instantiated.
-
- Assuming the ARM and DWP definition of "abstract class", there is still no
- inconsistency between the C++ programming language's treatment of pure
- virtual destructors and other pure virtual member functions. Both
- destructors and other member functions may be declared virtual and provide
- implementations (whether complete or not).
-
-
- Roger
-
- ---
-
- Roger L. Cauvin
- rcauvin@natinst.com
- Software Engineer
- National Instruments
-