Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpl-opus!hpcc05!hpsciz!masa
From: masa@hpsciz.sc.hp.com (Masayoshi Habu)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Pure virtual destructors are illegal?
Message-ID: <1410006@hpsciz.sc.hp.com>
Date: 3 Jun 91 17:02:23 GMT
References: <183@swampthing.sbi.com>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 18

In comp.lang.c++, pete@borland.com (Pete Becker) writes:

    "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

Please correct me if I am wrong. A pure virtual function usually has no
implementation because the intention is to catch a run-time error if this
function is never overridden and called somehow. However, in this case it
does not make sense to have a pure virtual destructor because even though
it is virtual, this destructor is called eventually anyway. So my opinion
is that the compiler should reject a pure virtual destrcutor.

What does ARM say about this ?

Masa