> Roughly speaking, when number() is invoked, the object still has type > Base (with a corresponding vtable). One's constructor will change the > type once the Base part has been constructed.
Aha yes, I didn't even think of that! Thanks Florian and Lion for your helpful answers! > The following FAQ entry covers this: > http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/strange-inheritance.html#faq-23.3 Hmm, I should've read just a little further... ;-) It still makes me wonder whether GCC is reporting the correct error for this mistake though, I would've expected a compiler error (something along the lines of 'you can't call a pure virtual function') rather than a linker error. Especially as GCC should be able to tell at compile time the base constructor is calling a pure virtual function. I guess it's treating the constructor like any other function, where this behaviour would be permitted. Either way, that solved the problem for me, so thanks again! Cheers, Adam.
