On 08/30/2011 08:35 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:30:42 -0400, Timon Gehr <timon.g...@gmx.ch> wrote:
On 08/30/2011 07:50 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
We could find cases like this all day.
Make I a class, and this problem also occurs.
Without the compiler having access to the *changes* it cannot be perfect
in detecting refactoring errors.
-Steve
Chances are that it will detect more errors if "override" actually
means override.
Is it just the name? What if it was implement? or override_or_implement?
Would that make it "detect more errors"?
I am saying:
override_or_implement naturally will detect less errors because it is
less specific. Based on context it either means "do nothing special" or
"override that method". (that is the current behavior of "override" of
course)
Renaming the keyword would make its current meaning more explicit, it
wouldn't make it detect more errors.
I can't see how finding more bugs is a bad thing, regardless of what the
name of the keyword is.
Therefore we agree?
