From -2817621442421380471 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,8466591b9cd11017 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: Francis Glassborow Subject: Re: C++ 'philosophy' question, Constructors/Destructors Date: 2000/06/18 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 635844649 Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ References: <394a5536.29331042@news.columbia.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mail2News-Path: news.demon.net!mulga.cs.mu.oz.au X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 961281341 mail2news:1045 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk Organization: Southfield Microcomputer SS X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Francis Glassborow Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ In article , Barry Margolin writes >I'm not saying that it was the wrong choice (personally, >my favorite OO language is CLOS, which makes it easy to automate passing-on >of *all* method calls), but that doesn't mean that an alternate choice >would be "fundamentally flawed". Sorry, what I meant was that the way the OP wanted to design his hierarchy was 'fundamentally flawed' because in the context of the way that C++ is designed you cannot get inheritance to do what he wants. In addition, I find it difficult to see how ctors and dtors could do anything different from the way they are currently designed to work without making radical changes to the entire language. AFAIK the mechanism is shared by the overwhelming majority of languages that support inheritance. Francis Glassborow Association of C & C++ Users 64 Southfield Rd Oxford OX4 1PA +44(0)1865 246490 All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]