لطفا منتظر باشید ...
Exceptions
Some component architectures (e.g., COM and CORBA) don't use a standard deletion mechanism, and foster different protocols for object disposal. Follow the local patterns and idioms, and adapt this guideline as appropriate.Consider also this rare case:
- B is both a base class and a concrete class that can be instantiated by itself (and so the destructor must be public for B objects to be created and destroyed).
- Yet B also has no virtual functions and is not meant to be used polymorphically (and so although the destructor is public it does not need to be virtual).
Then, even though the destructor has to be public, there can be great pressure to not make it virtual because as the first virtual function it would incur all the run-time type overhead when the added functionality should never be needed.In this rare case, you could make the destructor public and nonvirtual but clearly document that further-derived objects must not be used polymorphically as B 's. This is what was done with std::unary_function .In general, however, avoid concrete base classes (see Item 35). For example, unary_function is a bundle-of-typedefs that was never intended to be instantiated standalone. It really makes no sense to give it a public destructor; a better design would be to follow this Item's advice and give it a protected nonvirtual destructor.
