Is it required to provide default definitions for virtual functions in a base class?

1. Are we required to provide default definitions for (non-pure) virtual functions in a base class? My intuition tells me yes because from what I understand a base class with virtual functions (and no pure virtual functions) is just like any other class save for the fact that its virtual functions may be re-defined by its child classes... But I want to double check this with you guys.

2. If a class contains X functions and one of the X functions is pure virtual, then the class automatically becomes an abstract base class and objects of the class cannot be instantiated. If this is the case, then is it necessary to provide definitions for the other virtual functions that are not pure virtual?

I know these questions seem useless since I can't think of a reason to not want to provide default definitions for virtual functions either way, but I'm preparing for a theory mid-term and I think it would be good to know these kinds of things for the test...

Thanks

Both of your questions are easily tested. What results do you get when you write a quick test program, and how are those results not what you expected?

Isn't that the difference between pure virtual and non-pure virtual functions? Pure virtual function is a virtual function with no body. So if a virtual function has no body then it would be pure.

No, a pure virtual function is a virtual function that must be overriden in derived classes. A pure virtual function will make the class abstract (thus it cannot be instantiated).
However, most pure virtual functions still require a body (even if nonsensical), or you will get a linking error.
And a pure virtual function is made by appending = 0 after the parameter list; it is not depending on whether the virtual function has a body or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

However, most pure virtual functions still require a body (even if nonsensical), or you will get a linking error.

---

A pure virtual function will only require a definition to avoid a linker error if it is called, e.g., a pure virtual destructor would be called by the destructors of derived classes.

I am uncertain of that, which is why I labeled it "most."
I have certainly gotten linker errors from pure virtual functions not being defined, and yet, they are all overriden in the derived classes and as the base class itself cannot be instantiated, I fail to see how those (pure) virtual functions are being called at all.

Then you apparently have some other problem in your code. Could you post an example of when you think you are getting this error?

In the general case a pure virtual function does not need to be defined. A pure virtual destructor must be defined because it is always called.

Most pure virtual functions are not defined (except destructors). Even advanced programmers are surprised when they find out you can define a pure virtual function because it's just not done very often.


Canadian0469, the answer to your first question is yes. It's hard to test to find out if it is required in all cases (you can't try all cases), so I'll just give you that answer. Have you tried the second problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daved

Then you apparently have some other problem in your code. Could you post an example of when you think you are getting this error?

---

No, sorry. Too long ago.
If I do reproduce it, I'll try to remember to post it.