🚀 go-pugleaf

tim@franck.Princeton.EDU (Tim Hollebeek) writes:

>Is the following legal C++ code?  g++ compiles it, but it doesn't link
>(undefined function Foo::foo()). 

No, the following code is not legal, because you don't have a definition
for the pure virtual function Foo::foo().  But if you add one, e.g.

	int Foo::foo() { return 42; }

then the code is quite legal.

>I'm suprised it compiles at all:

It has always been legal in C++ to provide a definition for pure
virtual functions, although the only way to invoke such a function is
by using an explicit qualification.

Yes, this suprised me too ;-)  I think it would have been simpler to
disallow definitions of pure virtual functions.

--
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.  Moderation policy:
  http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html. ]