Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
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?
It was a question, you one-liner-asker you.
Andrei
