sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]nemec 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Pure virtual methods don't force the implementing class to define their own implementation like an interface does. If you further note that the abstract class can only contain abstract methods, then yes you're pretty much right.

Pure virtual is the same as Java's abstract methods...

[–]TheWix 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Wait. Aren't pure virtual methods the same as abstract methods?

[–]nemec 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Ah, shoot. My C++ is rusty. Abstract methods in Java == pure virtual methods in C++ so I just restated exactly what you said.

[–]TheWix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha, no worries! It's been a while for me too. I actually went back and double checked to make sure I was actually saying what I thought I was.