🚀 go-pugleaf

db@argon.Eng.Sun.COM (David Brownell) writes:

>...
>So, a pair of proposals that I'd be happier to see accepted:

>   (1)	It is an error for a class to have virtual functions and a
>	nonvirtual destructor.
>	
>   (2a) C++ compilers don't automagically generate ANYTHING for classes
>	any more:  constructors, destructors, assignment and address-of
>	operators, etc.  If such routines are used but not declared and
>	defined, that is an error.


I like this! Compilers could have "compatibility" switches, but for 
those of us who would rather do it ourselves, we could use the
full strength version.

I think I would feel a lot better about my C++ compiler if I didn't
have to make a copy-ctor private/unimplemented (as a safegaurd) just
because I was afraid that I *might* be accidentally copying an object.
It would be much better if the compiler simply said it was an error
to copy without a copy-ctor (or whatever), then the programmer can:

1) remove the need to copy
2) install the proper method to do the copy

This goes for all the other automagic stuff too! I cringe when I 
think about automagically adding virtual destructors, even though
they are most times needed...



-- 
++harvey
===========================================================================
internet:       harvey@opl.com  /  hreed@cs.ulowell.edu  /  h.reed@ieee.org
voice/fax:      617-965-0220    /  617-965-7599