pure virtual constructors and distructors...

[Shraddha]

What is the use of "PURE vitual distructors"?
And why we can not have vitual constructors?

 

[Walter Roberson]

What is the use of "PURE vitual distructors"?
And why we can not have vitual constructors?

I believe you are asking a C++ question; try comp.lang.c++ .

 

[Eric Sosman]

Shraddha wrote On 06/25/07 13:55,:

What is the use of "PURE vitual distructors"?
And why we can not have vitual constructors?

comp.lang.c++ is upstairs, on the forty-second floor.
Take the elevator, but be sure it's not overloaded.

 

[Flash Gordon]

Shraddha wrote, On 25/06/07 18:55:

What is the use of "PURE vitual distructors"?
And why we can not have vitual constructors?

I think you want a different group, possibly comp.lang.c++ possibly
something else depending on what language you are using. You also should
try to do your own homework and then ask people whether you have it
right, not just ask for the answers.

 

[Johan Bengtsson]

Shraddha wrote On 06/25/07 13:55,:

comp.lang.c++ is upstairs, on the forty-second floor.
Take the elevator, but be sure it's not overloaded.

One of the problems with elevators is that virtual elevators can not be
overloaded and non-virtual ones can. This is rather inconsistent and
very bad elevator design rules in my opinion.