home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: b91926@fsgi01.fnal.gov (David Sachs)
- Message-ID: <4h5c92$irn@fsgi01.fnal.gov>
- X-Original-Date: 29 Feb 1996 17:18:58 -0600
- Path: in2.uu.net!bounce-back
- Date: 01 Mar 96 14:57:20 GMT
- Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Subject: Re: An Extra Virtual Destructor Question t
- Organization: FERMILAB, Batavia, IL
- References: <4h25rb$43e@news.xs4all.nl> <4h2abb$l69@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>
- Reply-To: sachs@fnal.fnal.gov
- X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #9 (NOV)
- X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++
- iQBFAgUBMTcQW+EDnX0m9pzZAQGT0gF8DDL6RZ1hSPxQVfmerDooxjQwhKYC1J3W
- p6wj6CxBTHBmXA2ILzm8QXExGottElsK
- =44B7
-
- clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Clamage) writes:
-
- >The compiler will generate calls to the pure virtual destructor if
- >any derived type is destroyed (you can't create objects of type X).
- >If you declare a member function, the compiler does not generate it
- >for you. Thus, if you declare a pure virtual destructor, you usually
- >must implement it as well.
-
- Do you think it would be a good idea if the standard allowed
- something like:
-
- class X { virtual ~X()=0 {} } // Combined pure virtual + definition
- --
- ***** Listen Americans, the IRS is your taxer, the IRS is one. *****
- David Sachs - Fermilab, HPPC MS369 - P. O. Box 500 - Batavia, IL 60510
- Voice: 1 708 840 3942 Deparment Fax: 1 708 840 3785
- ---
- [ To submit articles: try just posting with your news-reader.
- If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
- FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html
- Policy: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
- Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.
- ]
-