At 21:52 2005-10-26, Matt Calabrese wrote:
On 10/26/05, Victor A. Wagner Jr. <vawjr@rudbek.com> wrote:
perhaps some other paragraph? this doesn't address anything about derived objects.
Just look 2 paragraphs further:
5.3.5 paragraph 3
"In the first alternative (delete object), if the static type of the operand is different from its dynamic type, the static type shall be a base class of the operand's dynamic type and the static type shall have a virtual destructor or the behavior is undefined." ...
indeed, but there is no dynamic type vs static type in the example.
The paragraph then goes further to talk about arrays.
As for interest in the STL containers with virtual destructors, I'd personally say no.
I didn't suggest them, I'm arguing that for the example given they aren't necessary
I've never encountered a situation where it would be useful or at least useful and better than other alternatives. Anyway, the desire for a virtual destructor could exist with any type. If someone wants virtual destructors for STL containers, then what next? multi_array with virtual destructors? graphs? Forgive me if that sounds like a slippery slope argument, but really I see no logic as to why one would want virtual destructors for STL containers yet not any other types. You can use the same type of argument for any type you can think of -- "I want to derive from the type and then add functionality, but want to delete it via a pointer to the base class".
I have never said such. I don't know where you got the idea I had.
Does this mean that all types should have one version with virtual destructors, and one without? Definately not. I just don't see why someone would want to make the exception for STL containers.
-- -Matt Calabrese _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com The five most dangerous words in the English language: "There oughta be a law"