title: Constructors cannot be virtual, why? Not a dupe
body: <blockquote>
  <p><strong>Possible Duplicate:</strong><br />
  <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/733360/why-do-we-not-have-a-virtual-constructor">Why do we not have a virtual constructor?</a></p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>I know this has been asked before but I didn't understand the complex technical words used in the other answers.</p>
  <p>I read on a community the reason that constructors cannot be virtual is</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>The ‘virtual’ mechanism works on a logically complete (completely constructed) object. We know that we use constructors to logically initialize our objects. In other words, the object is not completely constructed until the constructor has finished executing. Thus, we can’t have virtual constructors.</p>
  <p>There is a misconception that by then virtual table is incomplete so we can’t have virtual constructors. Just before the constructor starts executing the virtual table is properly constructed and the ‘this’ pointer passed to the constructors. Moreover, virtual table mechanism is implementation depended, and finds no place in the C++ standard. And hence, to argue over this issue using the virtual table concept is illogical.</p>
  <p>Now, as the constructor finishes executing any other function can be virtual. Destructor is no exception to this rule as it is a function. Virtual destructors are required in case we use a base class pointer to refer to a derived class object, use it, and then delete it. If we have virtual destructor, using ‘delete’, a chain of destructors is called starting from the derived to the base. But, had there been no ‘virtual’ in destructor only the base class destructor is called (and not the derived). This (may) generate inconsistencies in the program.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>Is the above reason correct? The answer doesn't talk about the static and dynamic types of objects.</p>