Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!emory!wrdis01!mips!daver!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: type/member tags (was Re: asking an object for its type) Message-ID: <27CE7CF1.487A@tct.uucp> Date: 1 Mar 91 16:10:23 GMT References: <27CC322C.510C@tct.uucp> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 11 According to vaughan@puma.cad.mcc.com (Paul Vaughan): >In short, I believe that it makes sense to recognize "classes with >virtual functions" as an important concept worthy of a name and >special functionality. I consider this a reasonable stand. In particular, "classes with virtual functions" should be identical to "classes with virtual destructors." I would go so far as to make illegal a class with virtual functions but a non-virtual destructor. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT ,