On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 07:23:47 +0200, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 6/4/13 1:05 AM, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 06:16:45 +0200, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think it is unfair to say most classes are not base classes. This
would mean most classes are marked as final. I don't think they are.
One of the main reasons to use classes in the first place is for
extendability.
This is false. Consider this hierarchy: A->B->C, where x->y means 'x
derives from y'. There is only one base class (A), and only one class
that may be marked final (C). This will often be the case.
You two are in violent agreement. (B is also a base class, in addition
to being a derived class.)
Yes and no. I suspected after posting that this argument would appear.
I believe a degradation of jargon has taken place - Manu originally
spoke of foundation classes - classes with many overridable methods.
A in my example is one of these, and I believe that's what Manu meant
when he said 'base class' in the above discussion.
--
Simen
