virtual??

[ColinDavies]

Very insightful. :-) :-) Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: Watch this signature for an upcoming announcement that will affect you.

[leppie]

C/C++ C# ==================================== static private virtual abstract Anyways, thats how I understand it. :) top secret xacc-ide 0.0.1

[Jorgen Sigvardsson]

I think you should ignore the fact that a virtual method may have a default implementation where it's declared. The function is there (declared) but not there at the same time (not implemented). It's virtually there. :) -- ...Coca Cola, sometimes war...

[Joel Holdsworth]

Yeah that kinda makes sense... but it still seems a little flimsy. Why not overridable or somthing else... somthing more intuitive. Joel Holdsworth

[Bob Stanneveld]

From "The C++ programming language" by B. Stroustrup: The word virtual means: "may be redifined later in a class derived from this one."

A student knows little about a lot. A professor knows a lot about little. I know everything about nothing.

[Roger Alsing 0]

a friend of a friend *cough* said that that was a vb.net keyword you dont want to include vb keywords into c++ do you? //Roger

[Anthony_Yio]

"generic" makes more sense to me though, than "virtual" Sonork 100.41263:Anthony_Yio

[Jon Hulatt]

que? are you saying that static is the same as private, and virtual is the same as abstract?

#include <beer.h>

[David Crow]

Daniel Turini wrote: please explain me static It simply means "lack of change." Another definition says it "lacks action or movement."

---

"When I was born I was so surprised that I didn't talk for a year and a half." - Gracie Allen

[Kastellanos Nikos]

Bob Stanneveld wrote: From "The C++ programming language" by B. Stroustrup: The word virtual means: "may be redifined later in a class derived from this one." My "English/C++ lexicon" said the same thing. :cool: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Memory leaks is the price we pay \0 01234567890123456789012345678901234

[papaya_zm]

virtual is virtual,no reason,no history!

[palbano]

Joel Holdsworth wrote: Why not overridable sorry, overridable is not the same. Joel Holdsworth wrote: somthing more intuitive.

public:
   intuitive void execute()=0;

:-D

-- signature under construction --

-pete