U++ framework: U++ Developers corner » why no virtual destructor for RegExp?

Home » Developing U++ » U++ Developers corner » why no virtual destructor for RegExp?

Sat, 19 January 2013 12:30

navi
Messages: 107
Registered: February 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia

Experienced Member

mirek wrote on Sat, 19 January 2013 12:03

You are right. I think the author considers RegExp to be "sealed". Your contract is with public interface only.

Mirek

Thanks Mirek. Sad

I guess I better get started with writing my own RegExp class then.

Regards
Navi

		why no virtual destructor for RegExp? By: navi on Sat, 19 January 2013 06:22
		Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp? By: mirek on Sat, 19 January 2013 12:03
		Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp? By: navi on Sat, 19 January 2013 12:30
		Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp? By: dolik.rce on Sat, 19 January 2013 13:19
		Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp? By: navi on Sat, 19 January 2013 13:26
		Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp? By: navi on Fri, 25 January 2013 14:58
		Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp? By: navi on Fri, 25 January 2013 15:01
		Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp? By: dolik.rce on Fri, 25 January 2013 16:04
		Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp? By: dolik.rce on Fri, 25 January 2013 16:10
		Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp? By: navi on Fri, 25 January 2013 17:37
		Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp? By: dolik.rce on Fri, 25 January 2013 19:16
		Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp? By: navi on Mon, 28 January 2013 07:11
		Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp? By: mirek on Tue, 19 February 2013 17:15
		Re: why no virtual destructor for RegExp? By: navi on Wed, 20 February 2013 00:23

Previous Topic:	Details when compiling in 64 bits
Next Topic:	Wanted: OpenGL for gtk+ backend

Goto Forum:

] [

]

Current Time: Tue Sep 15 22:05:22 GMT+2 2026

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00732 seconds