🚀 go-pugleaf

In article irn@fsgi01.fnal.gov, b91926@fsgi01.fnal.gov (David Sachs) writes:
>clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Clamage) writes:

>>The compiler will generate calls to the pure virtual destructor if
>>any derived type is destroyed (you can't create objects of type X).
>>If you declare a member function, the compiler does not generate it
>>for you. Thus, if you declare a pure virtual destructor, you usually
>>must implement it as well. 

>Do you think it would be a good idea if the standard allowed 
>something like:

>class X { virtual ~X()=0 {} } // Combined pure virtual + definition 

It complicates the syntax and language definition, and makes the code
harder to read and understand. The code (IMHO) is more subject to errors
in editing and maintaining.

In exchange, the suggested syntax saves one line of code in the source text:
	X::~X() { } // 8 tokens

It doesn't sound like a good tradeoff to me.

---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com
---
[ To submit articles: try just posting with your news-reader.
                      If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html
  Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.
]