Quoting Darin McBride to Anders Wegge Jakobsen, 18 Apr 97
about Rating of C++:
 DM> It's not quite the same effect... if I _need_ you to write func's A, B,
 DM> and C, I can with the abstract member functions.  I can't do the same
 DM> thing withprotected constructors.  Your method would necessitate a
 DM> default behaviour on functions where they may not be implementable. 
 DM> The famous "draw()" function of Shape comes to mind.  I don't WANT a
 DM> default for it!
 Sorry, I seem to have jumped to a premature conclusion. 
 What i *thought* you were discussing, were the kludgy-ness of defining a 
pure virtual class, or what the proper term is for a class that's 
un-instantiable(sp?) on it's own.
MVH, 
 Anders Wegge Jakobsen
--- Mail Manager 1.22x/n #1096
2:238/28.0)
---------------