Without actually looking at the standard, isn't a pure virtual function with an implementation simply a contradiction? The fact that there is no implementation is what makes it "pure". Otherwise, it's just a regular virtual function. It doesn't make sense to try to say something is both pure virtual and that it has a definition. That's just self contradictory... Thanks, Lyle Taylor -----Original Message----- From: Eljay Love-Jensen [mailto:eljay@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 1:38 PM To: gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: pure virtual w/implementation bug in GCC 3.3? Hi everyone, Using GCC 3.3 or GCC 3.2, it appears unable to digest this code: --------8<-------- class Foo { public: virtual ~Foo() = 0 { } }; --------8<-------- > g++33 -c foo.cpp foo.cpp:4: error: parse error before `{' token foo.cpp:4: error: missing ';' before right brace Pure virtual functions can have implementations. Pure virtual destructors (if I recall correctly) MUST have implementations. And if the implementation is defined later with GCC 3.2 or 3.3 -- either as inline or not as inline ("out of line"?) -- it digests it with out an issue. As per Stroustrup's C++PL, the EBNF grammar looks like it should and does support the syntax given above. (The "implicit inline" of a method given in the class declaration.) Is this a known bug in GCC? Or is this a new bug in GCC? Or am I misinformed? Thanks, --Eljay
