Re: Why do abstract class functions require definitions?

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On 2015-09-16 12:36, Marc Schütz wrote:

Wouldn't the following behaviour be more useful as a default?
     abstract class Foo {
         void bar1() { }     // non-abstract, obviously
         void bar2();        // abstract, because it's in an abstract class
                             // (different from now)
         extern void bar3(); // non-abstract, but defined externally
     }

Currently "extern" has the meaning, at least on Windows, that the symbol 
will be visible outside a dynamic library.

--
/Jacob Carlborg