Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!drutx!kvt
From: kvt@drutx.ATT.COM (TranKV)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: True Virtual
Message-ID: <5034@drutx.ATT.COM>
Date: 6 Feb 90 22:56:08 GMT
References: <4800082@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <4924@drutx.ATT.COM> <10382@alice.UUCP> <4982@drutx.ATT.COM> <10424@alice.UUCP>
Reply-To: kvt@drutx.ATT.COM (TranKV)
Organization: AT&T, Denver, CO
Lines: 30

In article <10424@alice.UUCP> shopiro@alice.UUCP (Jonathan Shopiro) writes:


>Kim Tran wants to know why he can't have a pure virtual destructor,
>that is
>
>	class Foo {
>		virtual ~Foo() = 0;	// error
>	};
>
>The reason is that whenever an object is destroyed, the destructors
>for all its base classes are executed.  The pure virtual syntax says
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that the function will never be called, but its name is a legitimate
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>function name so the compiler tries to call it in the destructor of
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the derived class.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Do we have a case of "double dealings" here? |-) or a symptom of wanting
to do a lot behind the scene for the users but ending up lying to them?
Well, for one thing, it reminds me of the Iran/Contra trials that are
making headlines here. |-)
(I just cannot help making the comparision. Just for fun. No offense
intended.)

Kim Tran
Bell Labs
kvt@drutx.att.com