Re: replicated base classes
From: ma740988 (ma740988_at_pegasus.cc.ucf.edu)
Date: 02/08/04
- Next message: ma740988: "Re: operator overloading .. more"
- Previous message: Mike Wahler: "Re: What does this mean?"
- In reply to: Richard Heathfield: "Re: replicated base classes"
- Next in thread: Richard Heathfield: "Re: replicated base classes"
- Reply: Richard Heathfield: "Re: replicated base classes"
- Reply: B. v Ingen Schenau: "Re: replicated base classes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 7 Feb 2004 21:08:20 -0800
Richard Heathfield <dontmail@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:<c0290e$ci3$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> > class A{};
>
> Let's find out.
>
> $ cat foo.cpp
> #include <iostream>
> using namespace std; /* yeah, I know, I know, but it's just a quickie */
>
> class A
> {
> public:
> A() { cout << "class A constructor" << endl; }
> ~A() { cout << "class A destructor" << endl; }
> };
>
The fact that you did not use the free store allows for a non virtual
destructor?
I've done so much reading but i seem to recall the need for a virtual
destructor in a base class if there's derived classes.
> class B : public A
> {
> public:
> B() { cout << "class B constructor" << endl; }
> ~B() { cout << "class B destructor" << endl; }
> };
>
I also see to recall that as long as the base has virtual destructor
then the derived classes does not warrant virtuals. Yes??
> class C : public A
> {
> public:
> C() { cout << "class C constructor" << endl; }
> ~C() { cout << "class C destructor" << endl; }
> };
>
> class BC : public B, public C
> {
> public:
> BC() { cout << "class BC constructor" << endl; }
> ~BC() { cout << "class BC destructor" << endl; }
> };
>
> int main()
> {
> BC test;
> return 0;
> }
>
> $ make
> g++ -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -O2 -g -pg -o foo foo.o
>
> $> ./foo
> class A constructor
> class B constructor
> class A constructor
> class C constructor
> class BC constructor
> class BC destructor
> class C destructor
> class A destructor
> class B destructor
> class A destructor
>
> Does that answer your question?
- Next message: ma740988: "Re: operator overloading .. more"
- Previous message: Mike Wahler: "Re: What does this mean?"
- In reply to: Richard Heathfield: "Re: replicated base classes"
- Next in thread: Richard Heathfield: "Re: replicated base classes"
- Reply: Richard Heathfield: "Re: replicated base classes"
- Reply: B. v Ingen Schenau: "Re: replicated base classes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
