🚀 go-pugleaf

Chris Page wrote:
> 
> In article <4l1bmi$1li@netlab.cs.rpi.edu>, sachs@fnal.fnal.gov wrote:
> 
> > Personally, I consider virtual destructors to be one of the blemishes
> > of the C++ language. There should be a better way to make a class
> > (with no other pure virtual functions) abstract.
> 
> How about an "abstract" keyword that you can place before "class"?

Hmmm.  If the class has no pure-virtual functions, why would you want
to make it "abstract"?  If all you want to do is prevent someone from
instantiating an object of its type, simply make the constructor private,
no?

- Casey

-- 
"Fear can hold you prisoner.  Hope can set you free."




[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  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                             ]