Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!boulder!ccncsu!ncr-fc!frodo
From: frodo@ncr-fc.FtCollins.NCR.COM (David Fletcher)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: virtual vs. non-virtual functions.
Message-ID: <201@ncr-fc.FtCollins.NCR.COM>
Date: 9 Mar 89 16:28:54 GMT
Reply-To: frodo@ncr-fc.UUCP (David Fletcher)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c++
Distribution: na
Organization: NCR  Fort Collins, Colorado
Lines: 28

Hello.  First of all, this is under AT&T 1.2.1 cfront.  I have a base
class, B, and a publicly derived class, D.  The base class defines a
non-virtual public member function, Value(), that returns the value of
some protected entry.  D does not define this member function (&, again,
Value() is not virtual).

Out of curiosity I tried:
	.
	.
   B SomeDooDad;
   D OtherDooDad;

   cout << "B's value is " << SomeDooDad.Value() "\n";
   cout << "D's value is " << OtherDooDad.Value() "\n";
	.
	.

This works but I didn't expect it to & don't understand why.  I thought
that only virtual functions (defined in a based class) would be defined
for the derived class.  If that's not the case then why even have the
virtual keyword?

Is this a bug?  Am I wrong?  Thanks for the help.
-- 
David Fletcher, NCR Microelectronics
2001 Danfield Court,
Ft. Collins, CO 80525	  |	"... Let everything else go ..."
(303) 223-5100 x 241	  |			-- Phil Keaggy