Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!warwick!rlvd!cmc From: cmc@inf.rl.ac.uk (Chris Crampton) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: C++ multiple inheritance (really virtual) Message-ID: <3167@rlvd.UUCP> Date: 11 Jul 88 14:48:13 GMT Reply-To: cmc@inf.rl.ac.uk (Chris Crampton) Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot. UK. Lines: 22 In article <401@otc.oz> mikem@otc.oz (Mike Mowbray) writes: >... >This would tend to imply that future library designers should always use >virtual bases unless they have a very good reason not to. Indeed, if a library is to be truly extensible then it seems to me that the designers should make all methods and destructors virtual unless they have a good reason not to. Another tough decision for library designers is which methods (and possibly data) should be made protected instead of private. Bad decisions made early on can make things very difficult for programmers who are sub-classing rather than just using the existing classes. I sometimes wish that virtual were the default... Chris. ======================================================================= Chris M Crampton UK JANET: cmc@uk.ac.rl.inf Rutherford Appleton Labs, ARPA: cmc%inf.rl.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk Didcot, OXON, U.K. UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!cmc +44 235 21900 ext. 6756 cmc@rlvd.uucp