23 Nov
2009
23 Nov
'09
12:50 a.m.
FWIW, non-virtual destructors are the norm in Boost. I strongly dislike the idea of having a policy enabling virtual destructors. Steven, could you tell me the reason for this? I have always thought
Steven Watanabe wrote: that if you had virtual methods, you should have a virtual destructor since the derived class has something different about it and if being destructed via a reference or pointer to base, the wrong thing could happen without a virtual destructor! Educate me please. I've never heard of any reason to avoid a virtual destructor if you already had virtual methods. Obviously I'm missing something about something I thought I understood. Patrick