[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       boost
Subject:    Re: [boost] [1.34.0beta] many, many warnings... :(
From:       Jeff Garland <jeff () crystalclearsoftware ! com>
Date:       2007-05-05 16:10:12
Message-ID: 463CAC64.8050609 () crystalclearsoftware ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Jonathan Franklin wrote:

> For example, GCC has a
>> warning about a derived class whose base doesn't have a virtual dtor.
>> It's actually *impossible* (not just inefficient or convoluted) to
>> implement is_polymorphic without generating that warning.
> 
> 
> Interesting.  I'm obviously flaunting my ignorance, but I didn't realize
> that inheriting from a class sans virtual dtor was ever a Good Thing.  I'll
> have to read up on the issues WRT is_polymorphic.

I find inheriting without virtual functions quite useful.  The main reason for 
the virtual destructor rule goes back to Scott Meyers Effective C++.  He 
points out that if you have Base <-- Derived and you call delete Base* the 
destructor of Derived is not called. In general, it's hard to ensure your 
derived classes won't need the destructor called and hence the rule. 
However, if Derived happens to have a trivial/empty destructor then, really 
there's no reason to call it.

As a practical example, my super string 'experiment' uses this technique for 
interface compatibility with std::string. In one incarnation super_string 
inherits from std::string, which doesn't have a virtual destructor.  Since 
super_string only adds functions to the type, has no state, and a trivial 
destructor I don't care that it's not called.  So, I have an extended type 
with functions useful to me, it's backward compatible with the existing type, 
and no virtual table/destructor is needed.

http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/libraries/super_string/index.html

Jeff


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]