On Jan 5, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Manu wrote: > 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 the override keyword fits here, though in reverse.
