Re: I don't have to tell you...

From:

"Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:50:02 +0100

Message-ID:

<helipu$bpm$1@news.ett.com.ua>

"Alf P. Steinbach" <alfps@start.no>

Jeez, where do you pick up such misconceptions?

What's miconceived?

C++ FAQ [23.5]:
- "When my base class's constructor calls a virtual function on its this
object, why doesn't my derived class's override of that virtual function
get invoked?"
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/strange-inheritance.html#faq-23.5

This is good. It's the official C++ FAQ. Since you're using it as
authority I mention that some of that stuff further down originated with
me. :-)

Mega-LOL.

http://www.artima.com/cppsource/nevercall.html
- "Never Call Virtual Functions during Construction or Destruction"

This, however, is total bullshit.

It isn't. It's Item#9 form EC++, explains well what is going on really, with
summary "Don't call virtual functions during construction or destruction,
because such calls will never go to a more derived class than that of the
currently executing constructor or destructor."

What quoted above is the item title -- that shall not be used as replacement
of the item content itself. :-o

Do you think a guideline book should add "unless you hit an exception" or
"unless you know better"?

In C++ virtual calls from constructors are safe, with one exception,
namely a call of a pure virtual.

Isn't it also safely call terminate() ?