Le 26/02/2012 00:02, Walter Bright a écrit :
On 2/24/2012 3:22 AM, deadalnix wrote:
Le 17/02/2012 17:19, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
On 2/17/12 8:13 AM, kenji hara wrote:
I think the lack of 'override' keyword (filed as bug 3836) should
become an error, without the phase of deprecating it. Otherwise
following case will be allowed.
Yes. Walter?
Andrei
I'm surprised this isn't even mentionned in
http://drdobbs.com/blogs/cpp/232601305
I definitively don't think that pushing stuff like that - I'm
suspecting for ego
reasons - ignoring some flaw of the idea is a good way to proceed.
This even may
be armfull for the language on the long run.
With no override keyword, function can just explode on your face for
no aparent
reason in the source code you are lookign at. This isn't an issue we
should ignore.
This has a pretty simple solution : don't inherit thoses attributes of
override
isn't present. On the long run, don't allow override without override
keyword ?
Not using override is currently deprecated. Eventually, it will be
required.
Doing this precipitously breaks existing code without allowing people
plenty of time to upgrade their code. This annoys people, and results in
them considering D "unstable" and "unusable".
I know that some do not see it as a problem to regularly introduce
breaking changes and pull the rug out from under people every month. But
I think that is a recipe for disaster.
True. This is why I stated « in the long run ». The solution to that is,
IMO, a standard process to deprecate and replace a feature, with a known
period of time, and a page on the website to annonce this.
Eventually, someday, the codebase will be that big that breaking changes
will not be an option anymore.
