Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!borland.com!pete
From: pete@borland.com (Pete Becker)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Pure virtual destructors are illegal?
Keywords: virtual destructor
Message-ID: <1991Jun1.192610.18321@borland.com>
Date: 1 Jun 91 19:26:10 GMT
References: <183@swampthing.sbi.com>
Organization: Borland International
Lines: 16

In article <183@swampthing.sbi.com> wfl@swampthing.sbi.com (W. Linke CPE) writes:
>
>It seems that you can't have a pure virtual destructor, but the compiler
>(Sun SPARCstation cfront 2.00.02) doesn't object.  Consider the following:
>
>	class Base {
>	public:
>		Base() { }
>		virtual ~Base() = 0;	// bad!
>		};

    	"Pure virtual" does not mean "no implementation"!  It only means that
a derived class must override the pure virtual function.  In the case of a
pure virtual destructor, since it will be called by the destructor for the
derived class, you must provide an implementation.
	-- Pete