Re the below, thanks, as always. I'll deal with it all shortly.
rh
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 05:41:23AM -0400, rgheck wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 03:44:28AM -0400, rgheck wrote:
Most of what I read suggests that this is a no-no, on
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 05:41:23AM -0400, rgheck wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 03:44:28AM -0400, rgheck wrote:
>>
>>> Most of what I read suggests that this is a no-no, on the ground that
>>> standard containers don't have virtual constructors. What's our view?
>>>
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 03:44:28AM -0400, rgheck wrote:
Most of what I read suggests that this is a no-no, on the ground that
standard containers don't have virtual constructors. What's our view?
One needs a virtual _de_structor exactly in the case when one is
dele
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 03:44:28AM -0400, rgheck wrote:
>
> Most of what I read suggests that this is a no-no, on the ground that
> standard containers don't have virtual constructors. What's our view?
One needs a virtual _de_structor exactly in the case when one is
deleting an object of the deri
