> > That is the case with overriding a non-virtual function - the compiler > will compile it anyway, and most of the time it will work. That's what > makes it so eeevil.
I saw today, or last night, someone suggesting a keyword to make non-virtual override explicit, and error otherwise. Which actually sounded like a really good idea to me, and also addresses this problem. I think a combination of not-virtual-by-default, and an explicit non-virtual override keyword would cover your concern, and also minimise the use of virtual functions. Sounds perfect to me ;) Overriding a non-virtual is actually very rare, and probably often unintended... I really like the idea of a keyword to make this rare use explicit. > It seems to me the decision is that of sacrificing a real and common >> problem >> case with frequent and tangible evidence, for the feeling that the >> language is >> defined to do the 'right' thing? >> > > The right thing should be the default. > But I fundamentally disagree your choice is 'right'.. This is obviously subjective, so I don't think that's a fair assertion. The problem was obviously not completely defined, and not addressed entirely.. I think the proposal above sounds like a better solution all round, it addresses everyones concerns, and adds a nice little safety bonus for rare non-virtual overriding ;) But as I've previously said, I understand this can't change now, I've let it go :P
