IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Which brings up another question.
I've seen the "const = 0" in the design patterns book. What does the " = 0" part imply? I'm assuming that since we are talking C++, this is basically setting the function to null?
New Pure virtual functions
The const is a red herring here. You can have it, or not.

This is implementation detail leaking into the syntax.

If you have an abstract base class and you want to specify required protocol but don't happen to have a sensible default implementation in mind, you define a pure virtual function like this:

[code]
class F
{
public:
virtual void f() = 0;
};
[/code]

which essentially tells the compiler to put a null value into the vtable entry (array of function pointers used for dynamic dispatch) for this particular function at this level of abstraction. It also implies that this class is abstract and may not be instantiated because it is illegal to instance a class with a pure virtual function.




[link|http://www.blackbagops.net|Black Bag Operations Log]

[link|http://www.objectiveclips.com|Artificial Intelligence]

[link|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html|Scrutinizer]
     C++ question on const - (ChrisR) - (24)
         Don't change the object, I believe - (JayMehaffey) - (2)
             Doh. - (ChrisR) - (1)
                 More than that... - (jb4)
         Re: C++ question on const - (tuberculosis) - (20)
             I still don't understand... - (ChrisR) - (19)
                 Const is not always forced - (JayMehaffey)
                 Its counterintuitive - (tuberculosis) - (14)
                     Say WHAT?!? - (jb4) - (13)
                         You can overload on const - (tuberculosis) - (11)
                             Why the hell would it do / allow that? - (drewk) - (1)
                                 Bell labs has an unlimited crack budget - (tuberculosis)
                             The easiness to keep track of is not the issue - (jb4) - (8)
                                 Huh? - (tuberculosis) - (7)
                                     No... - (jb4) - (6)
                                         I think you're talking past each other... - (admin)
                                         And you specify that by.... - (tuberculosis) - (4)
                                             We'll leave it at that. - (jb4) - (3)
                                                 I wasn't trying to be sarcastic - (tuberculosis) - (2)
                                                     No need to specify OO in this case - (JayMehaffey)
                                                     What does the type of the reference have to do with anything - (jb4)
                         Nominating this for LRPD (new thread) - (lincoln)
                 Re: I still don't understand... - (jb4) - (2)
                     Which brings up another question. - (ChrisR) - (1)
                         Pure virtual functions - (tuberculosis)

The rest of the nutzo stuff du jour.
75 ms