26 Aug 2000 drunen   » (Journeyer)

Had a friend of mine point out the wonderful C++ feature of pure virtual destructors.

I.e.

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

X::~X() {}

This is apparently legal C++ (Sect 10.3 and 10.4). It seems counter intuitive and yet apparently serves a purpose. If no other methods of a class are abstract, a virtual destructor can be used to prevent the instantiation of the class.

As well, it seems it is legal to provide a definition of any pure virtual function. Thus the meaning of a pure virtual method is that it prevents the instantiation of a class and that all pure virtual methods, minus the destructor, can be optionally defined.

This is a slight conceptual difference than what I had thought of pure virtual functions. In practice I have never defined a pure virtual function. And the notion of defining a pure virtual destructor is disturbing. I really believe that explicitly declaring and definition constructors as protected conveys the intent much clearer than a pure virtual destructor ever could.

Sometimes I wonder how stuff like this ever gets into standards.

Latest blog entries     Older blog entries

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!