🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec31.050150.28929@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller) writes:
>I would like to propose that if a class has virtual functions,
>then any destructor generated by the compiler will be virtual
>by default.
>
>(The suggestion was first read by me in a paper of Markku Sakkinen,
>who claims it was not his idea originally either.)
>
>Advantages: much safer, ensures correct deletion of objects
>by default.  Removes a source of bugs. Removes the reminder
>that its wise to do this from the FAQ.

This would be a way in which a function within the source code would be
virtual without the keyword 'virtual' having been used on it or a function of
the same name in an inherited class.  That would bother me as a consistency 
issue.

>Disadvantage: might slow down destruction a little. Can be
>fixed by the programmer explicitly declaring a non-virtual
>destructor.

The only way to make something explicity non-virtual would be the absence
of the 'virtual' keyword, unless we add a new keyword <shudder>.

If the destructor is going to be made virtual by that rule, there is no
need to declare it virtual.  But we can not make it explicitly non-virtual
unless the virtual keyword is an option.


Michael Feathers  [feathers@fiu.edu]      main () { main (); }