On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote: > > No. I think it would help going back to my original message instead of > asking one-liner questions. This would work much better in real life, but > it's a time sink in a newsgroup. You spend five seconds on asking a question > with a foregone answer just because you don't want to invest fifteen seconds > in re-reading my initial post, and then you have me spend five minutes > explain things again. It's counter-productive. > > If a class defines an abstract method and also provides a body for it, it > still requires the derived class to override the method. So abstract still > has some meaning.
Yes, I see now the parenthesized "requires overriding in derivees" now. > On the other hand, technically such a class would become instantiable > because it defines all of its methods. I wanted to explain that, however, > that wouldn't be a good idea because... and here's where 1-2 good examples > would have helped. I guess I'm going to drop it. Speaking of counterproductive timesinks, why would you bring up a proposal only to argue that it's a bad idea?
