🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C0Ayt4.263@fiu.edu>, feathers@serss0 (Michael Feathers) writes:
|> 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.
|> >
[...]

|> 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.

I think you misread the original post.  Only the automagically generated 
destructors would be virtual by default.  If the programmer explicity
defined a destructor _without_ the virtual keyword, it would not be virtual
(unless _I_ misread the post  :).

|> 
|> >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>.

Again, see comment above.

					-=Dave