home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Offline 2 / NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso / news / comp / lang / c++-part2 / 17568 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1996-08-05  |  1022 b 
  1. Path: news.ee.vill.edu!news
  2. From: sheridan@monet.vill.edu
  3. Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
  4. Subject: Re: Pure virtual destructors?
  5. Date: 16 Apr 1996 13:50:59 GMT
  6. Organization: Villanova University
  7. Message-ID: <4l08k3$6f0@ftp.ee.vill.edu>
  8. References: <4kuq0i$p6t@ftp.ee.vill.edu> <4kvsvb$bf@werple.net.au>
  9. NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.104.7.179
  10.  
  11. In article <4kvsvb$bf@werple.net.au>, David White <davidw@werple.net.au> wrote:
  12. >sheridan@monet.vill.edu writes:
  13. >
  14.     [snip]
  15. >>a compiler bug, so what am I missing?
  16. >
  17. >
  18. >When a virtual function is declared pure, it doesn't necessarily mean that
  19. >the class doesn't implement the function, it means only that some derived
  20. >class must implement it. You are free to provide an implementation for any
  21. >pure virtual function. In the case of virtual destructors, you have to
  22. >provide an implementation whether you declare it pure or not.
  23. >
  24. >David White
  25. >davidw@werple.mira.net.au
  26. >
  27.  
  28. Well, that's the piece of information I was missing.  Thanks for all private
  29. and public replies.
  30.  
  31. Pete Sheridan
  32.  
  33.  
  34.