Re: Abstract classes and methods
Re: Abstract classes and methods
- Subject: Re: Abstract classes and methods
- From: Jonathan Hendry <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:16:36 -0500
On Wednesday, August 29, 2001, at 12:26 , Chris Gehlker wrote:
On 8/29/01 7:30 AM, "Smith, Bradley" <email@hidden> wrote:
Seems I was talking about methods whilst everyone else is talking about
classes. Anyway, what I said still holds true. Coming from C++ I tend to
think of the effect that virtual and pure virtual methods have on my
class
as opposed to deciding what type of class I have. If I have a pure method
then my class is abstract (in the English sense of the word) in that
there
can never be an instance of that class.
I have a friend who insists that classes w/o pure virtual functions but
with
virtual destors be called "abstract concrete." He argues that the fact
that
it's an oxymoron gives it extra mnemonic punch. :-)
Kind of like "mutable const".