![[The AI Show Episode 142]: ChatGPT’s New Image Generator, Studio Ghibli Craze and Backlash, Gemini 2.5, OpenAI Academy, 4o Updates, Vibe Marketing & xAI Acquires X](https://www.marketingaiinstitute.com/hubfs/ep%20142%20cover.png)
.jpg?#)
![YouTube Announces New Creation Tools for Shorts [Video]](https://www.iclarified.com/images/news/96923/96923/96923-640.jpg)
![Apple Faces New Tariffs but Has Options to Soften the Blow [Kuo]](https://www.iclarified.com/images/news/96921/96921/96921-640.jpg)
When wouldn't I want to allow polymorphic deletion in C++?
When designing a pure virtual base class (interface) in C++, in what cases would I not want to allow polymorphic deletion via a pointer to my base class? I've seen questions about why you should make the destructor virtual or not (e.g. this one). They often include guidance that says you should make the destructor public and virtual or protected and non-virtual. However, if I don't know how users will derive from my interface or how they will want to delete objects of the derived class, why wouldn't I always make the destructor virtual in a pure virtual base class?
When designing a pure virtual base class (interface) in C++, in what cases would I not want to allow polymorphic deletion via a pointer to my base class?
I've seen questions about why you should make the destructor virtual or not (e.g. this one). They often include guidance that says you should make the destructor public and virtual or protected and non-virtual. However, if I don't know how users will derive from my interface or how they will want to delete objects of the derived class, why wouldn't I always make the destructor virtual in a pure virtual base class?
