Now that the standard has carefully specified what virtual functions run when
called from constructors/destructors in objects with multiple inheritance it
becomes possible to allow the following:

 class X { public: X(); virtual ~X() = 0; };

Has this been considered?

--
John Hickin      Bell-Northern Research, Montreal, Quebec
(514) 765-7924   hickin@bnr.ca


---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]

john (j.d.) hickin (hickin@bnr.ca) wrote:

|> Now that the standard has carefully specified what virtual functions run when
|> called from constructors/destructors in objects with multiple inheritance it
|> becomes possible to allow the following:

|>  class X { public: X(); virtual ~X() = 0; };

|> Has this been considered?

In what way?  This has always been legal, and I see nothing in the
present draft to change it.  I occasionally use the idiom to force a
class to be abstract even when I want to provide default behavior for
all of the member functions.

Of course, you do still have to provide an implementation of the
destructor somewhere.
--
James Kanze           (+33) 88 14 49 00          email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs Bourgeois, 67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils,    tudes et r   alisations en logiciel orient    objet --
              -- A la recherche d'une activit    dans une region francophone

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]