Dnia środa, 17 sierpnia 2011 22:23:04 Jonathan M Davis pisze: > I'm afraid that I don't quite get what you're trying to say. Oh no, again :( I wonder if it's language bareer or just my freaky mind bareer. > > Now, I would argue that it should probably be required that Child either > override all of the abstract functions in its base classes so that it isn't > abstract or that it be marked with abstract, but unfortunately, it looks > like that's not required. It would probably be a fairly simple change to > the language which wouldn't really break backwards compability. So, an > enhancement request should probably be opened about that if it doesn't > already exist. I'm happy now. you understand me properly. My complaint is about fact, that Child isn't required to be marked with abstract.
Thanks, Mariusz Gliwiński
