Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jason Hise (chaos_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-09 15:28:19

Tobias Schwinger wrote:

> Jason Hise wrote:
>> AFAIK, a pure virtual function is the only way to automatically make
>> any derived classes un-instantiable.
> Have you considered a protected (or even private if you want complete
> uninstantiability) constructor?

This will not automatically make derived classes uninstantiable. Client
code should not be forced to provide a protected constructor if they
wouldn't naturally need one... the uninstantiability, if that's a word,
should be inherited automatically. A protected constructor would allow
a public client default constructor to be generated automatically.

Rob Stewart wrote:

>Nope. The derived class dtor would be virtual
>automatically. (12.4/7)
In that case I'll apply the changes and get the new version online as
soon as possible.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at