🚀 go-pugleaf

"john (j.d.) hickin" <hickin@bnr.ca> writes:

>|> 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.

Am I right to suppose that you are talking about using an explicit create()
or init() function to perform initialization, rather than using the
constructor?

>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.

I've yet to come across an example for which this aspect of the current
object model is useful.  Has anyone else encountered one?


---
[ 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. ]