== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article > 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.
What would making them non-virtual accomplish? I don't think making them non-virtual would hurt too much in practice, but it would introduce an inconsistency into the language relative to "regular" methods. Therefore, I don't think it should be done without a very good reason.
