> >> for example I noticed that in this release you make use of > >> "boost::python::pure_virtual" which is > >> correct but causes me lots of headaches :) , here is a short explanation > >> of the problem: > >> ""boost::python::pure_virtual" is a custom "visitor" that adds a default > >> implementation > >> (function "pure_virtual_called") which raises an exception. > > > > I noticed that boost::python::pure_virtual is only used for pure virtual > > public methods and not for > > pure virtual protected methods, is this intentional? I think that > > boost::python::pure_virtual > > should be used in pure virtual protected methods too. > > Yes, you forget that in C++ it is illegal to take address of non-public member.
That's true but, as I reported in my previous post, that's not the case when we have a wrapper class, right? Could it be added only in this case?