Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:32:21 -0800, Walter Bright 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.
Is this again one of those features that is supposed to hide the fact that dmd & optlink toolchain sucks? At least gcc can optimize the calls in most cases where the operator is defined to be virtual, but is used in non-polymorphic manner.