defining pure virtual functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: yuriry at gmail dot com
http
--- Comment #3 from yuriry at gmail dot com 2008-03-30 22:29 ---
I believe that the main problem here is that GCC allows defining pure virtual
functions. The compiler should report an error when these two functions are
defined:
//
void Base
--- Comment #2 from yuriry at gmail dot com 2008-03-31 07:10 ---
Hi Björn,
Thank you for the link and setting me straight. You are correct,
implementation of a pure virtual function by the class that declares it makes
sense. It is just the class itself remains abstract.
Earlier today
--- Comment #6 from yuriry at gmail dot com 2008-03-31 20:01 ---
Yes, it is legal, sorry confusion.
Yuri
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > I believe that the main problem here is that GCC allows defining pure
> > virtual
> > functions.
>
--- Comment #14 from yuriry at gmail dot com 2008-04-02 17:15 ---
Hi Björn
My question is slightly off topic but I am really interested in the purpose of
defining a template class where a template parameter is not used. Why would
you need this?
Regards,
Yuri
template
class TBase
--- Comment #16 from yuriry at gmail dot com 2008-04-02 17:58 ---
Thanks for the reply, David! But now I have more questions than I had before
:-)
I'm not sure if this thread is the right place to go into details on this
topic. If you know any other place to move this discu
