Why can't I declare a pure virtual function with `= delete;`?

Question

Intro

Pure virtual functions are delcared with the common syntax :

virtual f() = 0; 

Yet, since c++11 there's a way to communicate the explicit non existence of a (special) member function :

Mystruct() = delete; // eg default constructor

Q

Why isn't this syntax extended to pure virtual functions in order to achieve uniformity in communicating such operations ? :

virtual f() = delete; 

Note

I know the obvious answer is because the Standard says so!. I'm wondering about the reason(ing) behind this and whether there ever was a proposal (or an intention) for something like this.

Answer 1

Roughly speaking, the difference is that this:

virtual void f() = 0; 

says "This class is abstract, and I may not have written an implementation of this member function" (though you are allowed to).

However, this:

void f() = delete;

says "This member function literally does not exist, and none shall pass."