Login | Register   
RSS Feed
Download our iPhone app
Browse DevX
Sign up for e-mail newsletters from DevX

By submitting your information, you agree that devx.com may send you DevX offers via email, phone and text message, as well as email offers about other products and services that DevX believes may be of interest to you. DevX will process your information in accordance with the Quinstreet Privacy Policy.

Tip of the Day
Language: C++
Expertise: Beginner
Jan 18, 2000



Application Security Testing: An Integral Part of DevOps

Pure Virtual Destructors

I heard someone saying that C++ standardization does not allow pure virtual destructors not to have a definition.

As far as I know, this is not true. Could you please confirm? I cannot find the relevant information.

It is true: a pure virtual destructor must be defined. The reason is that a derived object's destructor recursively calls its base class's destructor. When the base's destructor is only declared but not implemented (as is the case of a nonimplemented pure virtual destructor), the compiler issues an error message, and rightfully so. The implementation of a pure virtual destructor is located outside the class declaration, and it must be empty:

class A
 virtual ~A()=0; //declaration

virtual A::~A()
{} //implementation
DevX Pro
Comment and Contribute






(Maximum characters: 1200). You have 1200 characters left.



We have made updates to our Privacy Policy to reflect the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation.
Thanks for your registration, follow us on our social networks to keep up-to-date