> Hrm... I'd understand it the other way around: it should be virtual so that > the correct (of the derived class) destructor is called when the object is > destroyed by the framework (probably a call via a pointer to a base class). > That's not as easy, if my understanding of destructors is correct. There are some cases where is does not work that way I think.
> But the net effect is the same ! :-) > Agree on that :)
