🚀 go-pugleaf

clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Clamage) writes:

>The current object model has these features:
>1. Calls to virtual functions from ctors/dtors are well-defined.
>2. Construction/destruction of base classes is fully automatic.
>3. During construction/destruction, you always know the validity of the
>   object; that is, the order of construction and destruction of members
>   and bases is predefined.
>4. When deriving a class, you need to know only the public and protected
>   interface of base classes; you don't need to know any implementation
>   details.

I disagree.  The current object model doesn't have feature 4.

When deriving a class, you need to know the contract that each
virtual function which you override must satisfy.

>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.

I disagree.  The only feature you need to give up is feature 4, but
since you never had that anyway, you haven't really lost anything.

>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.

On this I agree.  I don't think the C++ object model is optimal, but
I agree it would be a very bad idea to change it now.

--
Fergus Henderson             	WWW: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh
fjh@cs.mu.oz.au              	PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3
-- 


---
[ 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. ]