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
In that case I'll apply the changes and get the new version online as
soon as possible.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk