Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 08:06:27PM -0600, Chris Lattner wrote: | > In my mind, the times you want to silence the warning (without defining | > the virtual dtor) are when you *know* that it will never be used that way, | > because it's part of the contract of the class. | | In my view, if a class defines virtual functions, then this implies | that the class is intended to be derived from, so a non-virtual
I agree that implies that it is class that is intended to be derived from; but that does not imply it is a class intended to be used as "delete argument". Here, we have lots of classes here of that type -- interface classes + implementation classes with no resource management. Adding a virtual destructor just to silent a misguided warning is close to "silly compiler" in my book. | destructor is asking for trouble and should be warned about, even | if there is no "delete". -- Gaby
