How about this (taken from the standard 10.4 Abstract classes [class.abstract]):
[Note: a function declaration cannot provide both a pure-specifier and a definition ---end note] [Example:
struct C {
virtual void f() { }=0; // ill-formed
};
---end example]
m.
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:52:45 -0500
Eljay Love-Jensen <eljay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Hi Lyle,
>
>>Without actually looking at the standard, isn't a pure virtual function with an implementation simply a contradiction?
>
>No, it's not really the contradiction that it first appears.
>
>The compiler enforces that all derived classes implement the pure virtual function (or become marked as "abstract" themselves).
>
>A pure virtual function can have an imlpementation in that base class, such that derived classes could do a "using basefunc;" to explicitly utilize the base classes behavior implemented in the pure virtual basefunc method.
>
>I grant you, it is a bit unusual. When I run across one, I tend to do a double take. But just like have a "const volatile", there are appropriate situations for pure virtuals with implementations.
>
>*grin*
>--Eljay
>
>
>
