Why do we need a pure virtual destructor in C++?

by

  1. Probably the real reason that pure virtual destructors are allowed is that to prohibit them would mean adding another rule to the language and there’s no need for this rule since no ill-effects can come from allowing a pure virtual destructor.

  2. Nope, plain old virtual is enough.

If you create an object with default implementations for its virtual methods and want to make it abstract without forcing anyone to override any specific method, you can make the destructor pure virtual. I don’t see much point in it but it’s possible.

Note that since the compiler will generate an implicit destructor for derived classes, if the class’s author does not do so, any derived classes will not be abstract. Therefore having the pure virtual destructor in the base class will not make any difference for the derived classes. It will only make the base class abstract (thanks for @kappa‘s comment).

One may also assume that every deriving class would probably need to have specific clean-up code and use the pure virtual destructor as a reminder to write one but this seems contrived (and unenforced).

Note: The destructor is the only method that even if it is pure virtual has to have an implementation in order to instantiate derived classes (yes pure virtual functions can have implementations).

struct foo {
    virtual void bar() = 0;
};

void foo::bar() { /* default implementation */ }

class foof : public foo {
    void bar() { foo::bar(); } // have to explicitly call default implementation.
};

More Related Contents:

  1. Pure virtual destructor in C++
  2. can a pure virtual function has parameters?
  3. C++ – destructors [closed]
  4. Upcast, downcasting, and hiding methods in C++ [closed]
  5. If you shouldn’t throw exceptions in a destructor, how do you handle errors in it?
  6. Is calling destructor manually always a sign of bad design?
  7. calling destructor explicitly
  8. Do I need to explicitly call the base virtual destructor?
  9. Why is the destructor of the class called twice?
  10. GNU GCC (g++): Why does it generate multiple dtors?
  11. Does std::list::remove method call destructor of each removed element?
  12. call to pure virtual function from base class constructor
  13. Forward declaration with unique_ptr? [duplicate]
  14. Difference between a virtual function and a pure virtual function [duplicate]
  15. Destructors of builtin types (int, char etc..)
  16. Is a Union Member’s Destructor Called
  17. Will an ’empty’ constructor or destructor do the same thing as the generated one?
  18. Is destructor called if SIGINT or SIGSTP issued?
  19. What destructors are run when the constructor throws an exception?
  20. C++ local variable destruction order
  21. Will exit() or an exception prevent an end-of-scope destructor from being called?
  22. What is the purpose of __cxa_pure_virtual?
  23. How to add constructors/destructors to an unnamed class?
  24. C++ abstract class without pure virtual functions?
  25. Pseudo-destructor call does not destroy an object
  26. problems with Move constructor and Move overloaded assignment operator?
  27. C++ pure virtual function have body [duplicate]
  28. Why does destructor disable generation of implicit move methods?
  29. Are destructors run when calling exit()? [duplicate]
  30. Is the whole object freed with a non-virtual destructor and a Base class pointer?

Leave a Comment