On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 08:58 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > why is this destructor not virtual by default? i thought it was widely > accepted good practice that if the class is ever intended to be > inheritable, its destructor should be virtual?
Not necessarily. The destructor should be virual if it is intended to be used polymorphically. But yes, this would be useful to me sometimes too. I believe the choice was made once for performance. And you might actually be better off with your virtual inheritance elsewhere. Obviously it works for gtkmm, which multiply-inherits sigc::trackable. Virtual inheritance is a very odd thing and doesn't act exactly as you might expect. -- Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ libsigc-list mailing list libsigc-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/libsigc-list
