On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:56:46 -0400, Timon Gehr <timon.g...@gmx.ch> wrote:
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 mean if override was required for reimplementing base class functions
and required for implementing interface functions.
The errors it doesn't detect is when an interface changes to a class, and
for some reason you no longer want to override, um... I have no idea what
errors it wouldn't detect.
-Steve
