Victor Bazarov wrote:
That's not entirely true. I urge the OP and you to look through
the archives of this and the com.lang.c++.moderated newsgroups to
find that _sometimes_ (not at all often, of course) there *can*
be a need for a static virtual mechanism. Don't get hung up on
the need to have a pointer to the object to call a virtual function
because that would only be required for a non-static VF. Open your
mind a bit and read what has already been said about the subject.
Could you be a bit more specific? I'd like to learn more about this, but
a search for "static virtual group:comp.lang.c++" in Google Groups
yields 8.310 results, and I cannot really find anything that's contrary
to what I said.
In fact, the fourth hit [1] is a thread in which it's you who says:
"Access to a virtual function is resolved through an instance of the
class. That's the essence of virtuality of member functions. How, I am
asking, is the compiler going to resolve the access if the instance is
NOT to be used? It seems rather a contradiction to me..."
[1]
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/browse_thread/thread/4a550c5b62d0a988/974bf6c3e04013f1
polymorphic object. This is sometimes called a 'Strategy' design pattern.
there is nothing to stop a developer adding delegation in a static method.