On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:19:49 +0100, Adam <[email protected]> wrote:
I can see the case for a grand-child, but if a class does not provide a definition for an abstract member, is that class not, by association, abstract?
Of course. That's what I said. Or meant, at any rate.
"Classes become abstract if they are defined within an abstract attribute, or if any of the virtual member functions within it are declared as abstract." I *assume* that by extending Parent, Child inherits the abstract function. If inheriting an abstract member transitively makes Child an abstract, then I find that the abstract keyword at the class level is little more than explicit documentation.
Indeed. But I'm not one to argue that explicit documentation is bad.
