/prog/ - c++ and destructors

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-17 15:51

Okay, take a peek at this code:
class A {};
class B:public A {
public:
B() { /*stuff*/ }
~B() { /*stuff*/ }
};

Is this valid or do I have to declare an (empty) virtual destructor in class A? I _could_ make an app and test but that won't tell me if the result is defined or not.

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-17 16:01

~B() will destroy the B part of the object. ~A() will destroy the A part of the object. if the default ~A() destructor will suffice for an A object, you need not create a new one even if you inherit from it.

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-17 17:10

>>1
Look, you're dead:

A *lolwhat = new B;

delete lolwhat; // you suck, ~A() is not virtual...

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-17 17:48

>>3
Thanks Anonymous, that's what I was wondering.

Name: Anonymous 2006-11-17 18:03

>>4
this is the kind of crap that should not happen but if you fill a vector<A*> with B*...

Name: 2010-10-23 2:40

Name: Sgt.Kabu눿筋kiman㧧퍹 2012-05-28 21:16

Bringing /prog/ back to its people
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

c++ and destructors

1 Name: Anonymous 2006-11-17 15:51

2 Name: Anonymous 2006-11-17 16:01

3 Name: Anonymous 2006-11-17 17:10

4 Name: Anonymous 2006-11-17 17:48

5 Name: Anonymous 2006-11-17 18:03

7 Name: ​​​​​​​​​​ 2010-10-23 2:40