🚀 go-pugleaf

|> It seems to me that in order to allow calls to derived virtual overrides
|> from a base-class ctor/dtor you have to give up some of these features.
|> In designing the object model, you have to decide what features are
|> important, and what features you can do without. If you are going to
|> change the object model significantly, you might as well think about other
|> major changes and make a new language, IMHO.

I might add the current object model does not preclude a coding style that
achieves the aims of the alternate.  Such a coding style isn't even contrived.
Just imagine, however, the contortions one might have to go through to develop
a coding style that simulated the current object model assuming the alternate
model was the standard.

-- 
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. ]