On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:30:56 +0100, Manu <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 April 2013 21:09, Regan Heath <re...@netmail.co.nz> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:59:32 +0100, Dicebot <m.stras...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 April 2013 at 10:53:26 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
Hmm..
A is not final.
True. But, I don't see how this matters.
A has no internal linkage. It can be inherited from in other
compilation unit.
False. In this first example we are compiling A and B together (into
an
exe - I left that off) so the compiler has all sources and all uses
of all
methods of A (and B).
notVirt is virtual.
It may actually be (I don't know) but it certainly does not have to be
(compiler has all sources/uses) and my impression was that it
/should/ not
be.
R
If it is compiled all at once and compiled into executable binary than
yes, you examples are valid and compiler _MAY_ omit virtual.
Exactly the point I was trying to make. I wanted to establish the point
at which the design problems (what D defines/intends to do) arise, vs
when
the implementation problems arise (DMD not doing what D intends).
But
a) DMD doesn't do it as far as I am aware.
Maybe, maybe not. I have no idea. My understanding of the design
decision is that DMD will eventually do it.
I feel like I'm being ignored. It's NOT POSSIBLE.
You're not. The issue here is my understanding of the problem (and
compilation etc in general) and why you believe it's an insurmountable
problem. I am trying to both understand the issue and explore possible
solutions.
R
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
