> Hrm... I'd understand it the other way around: it should be virtual so that
> the correct (of the derived class) destructor is called when the object is
> destroyed by the framework (probably a call via a pointer to a base class).
>
That's not as easy, if my understanding of destructors is correct. There are
some cases where is does not work that way I think.

> But the net effect is the same ! :-)
>
Agree on that :)
Received on 2010-06-17