On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:32:21 +0300, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
Making them not virtual would also make them not overridable, they'd all
be implicitly final.
Is there any compelling use case for virtual operator overloads? Keep in
mind that any non-virtual function can still be a wrapper for another
virtual method, so it is still possible (with a bit of extra work) for a
class to have virtual operator overloads. It just wouldn't be the
default.
I thought operator overloading was going to be implemented via templates.
As such, they are non-virtual by default, which is okay, in my opinion.
