Am 04.03.2012 21:24, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
On Sunday, March 04, 2012 19:36:20 David wrote:
Am 04.03.2012 19:22, schrieb H. S. Teoh:
On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 03/04/2012 06:16 PM, David wrote:
Is this intended behaviour? http://ideone.com/xrvvL
shouldn't the 2nd writeln print the same as the first, well at least the
same content of i?
This is intended behaviour. You have two distinct definitions of i.
If you want to set i to 2 in the derived class, do so in the class
constructor.
Yeah, only member functions can be overridden in the derived class (and
even then, D requires you to explicitly state that with the 'override'
keyword).
Makes one wonder, though... from an OO perspective, does it make sense
to have overridable non-function members? What semantics would (should)
that have?
T
Thanks for your answers.
Maybe we should also allow override for fields.
Variables can't be polymorphic, and it wouldn't make sense for them to be.
Overidding is done to change behavior.
By the way, I wouldn't rely on much that ideone says about D at this point.
It's still on version 2.042 of dmd, whereas the latest release is 2.058.
- Jonathan M Davis
Sometimes you need constants which vary from the parents, which sould be
statically accessable and which you can use to identify the class, I
don't like the idea of having an additional functoion (@property) for
doing this.
I used ideone just to show you, I discovered this on my PC with dmd 2.058
