Oops, there're a few syntax error. But you get the idea.
On 22 Oct 2003 at 16:34, John Leung wrote:
> It is a "good" practice for base class' destructor to be virtual. However, it
> is not absolutely necessary and it won't always cause problem if you avoid the
> special case. The following is the special case when your derived class
> destructor would be skipped if your base class' destructor isn't virtual:
>
> Class A
> {
> public:
> A() { cout << "Called Class A Constructor\n" << flush;
> ~A() { cout << "Called Class A Destructor\n" << flush;
> };
>
> Class B : public A
> {
> public:
> B() { cout << "Called Class B Constructor\n" << flush;
> ~B() { cout << "Called Class B Destructor\n" << flush;
> };
>
> void main()
> {
> cout << "Test 1: Class B destructor will be skipped\n" << flush;
> A *b1 = new B;
> delete b1;
> cout << "Test 2: Everything is OK\n" << flush;
> B b2;
> }
>
>
John Leung
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://persweb.direct.ca/jleung
--
For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see
http://www.palmos.com/dev/support/forums/
