On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 11:13:44 UTC, Shammah Chancellor
wrote:
On 2014-02-25 05:38:15 +0000, Jesse Phillips said:
When I've had a need for base classes to call super class
functions, I certainly wanted a way to enforce it. I just
don't know if it would just lead to other OOP design problems.
Sounds like a good reason to use unittests to me. The
compiler can't possibly deal with all the different ways you
might want to enforce an OOP pattern in a particular program.
Introducing more keywords does not seem like a fix.
-S.
As unit tests are optional, they are in no way an enforcement.
And for library writers(which is who this idea is mainly for I
think), writing unit tests to try and test user written code
seems a little unreasonable, especially as they don't have access
to the code :/
