Lutger wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Consider:
class A {
abstract void fun() {}
}
The class defines a function that is at the same time abstract (so it
requires overriding in derivees) and has implementation.
Currently the compiler disallows creation of objects of type A,
although technically that is feasible given that A defines the
abstract method.
Should A be instantiable? What designs would that help or hinder?
Andrei
What's the point of marking fun() abstract if it has an implementation,
I thought the compiler disallowed that.
It may offer incomplete functionality that is to be reused and enhanced
by descendants.
Andrei
Then again, if it offers incomplete functionality why would you want it to
be instantiable? Instantiable should mean you can use this guy no? I tried
hard to think of a reason but can't find any.
Exactly, I only mark members as abstract if they have no
implementations, if any members have an incomplete implementation then i
mark the class as abstract.
I never had any problems that way. Besides it just makes no sense to
have an implemented member as abstract.
