On 08/30/2011 06:43 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:29:59 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 8/30/11 11:06 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
When I write code that derives from a base class, I'm declaring with
override that I want to implement the base class' function.
When I write code that implements an interface, I'm declaring with
override that I want to implement the interface's function.
From the cycle "deadpan answers": I think one should use "override"
when one wants to override.
Then your description of cases where override helps prevent bugs should
reflect that:
(a) User thinks she overrides a specific method but instead introduces a
new one.
(b) User thinks she introduces a new method but instead overrides one.
I consider implementing an interface method to be hooking, since you are
hooking calls from said interface.
I guess if we want to avoid solving all hooking problems, even those
where one does not intend to implement an interface, but accidentally
does, or introduce large annoyances where someone changes a widely used
interface to an abstract class, then I guess the status quo is good.
-Steve
I don't think that you can change a widely used interface into an
abstract class and not introduce annoyances much larger than override is
capable of creating.
How does the status quo prevent implementing interface methods by accident?
