Le 26/02/2012 00:02, Walter Bright a écrit :
On 2/25/2012 2:16 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Le 25/02/2012 22:59, Walter Bright a écrit :
On 2/25/2012 1:53 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Le 25/02/2012 22:25, Timon Gehr a écrit :
By explicitly stating that he is aware of all the overloads:
class B : A {
alias A.fun fun;
override void fun() { }
}
Alternatively:
class B : A{
override void fun()const{super.fun();}
override void fun() { }
}
So, back to the example above, someone will have to go throw the whole
codebase
and add override void fun()const{super.fun();} all over the place to
fix the
broken code ?
No, he can use the alias version.
What would it look like ?
class B : A {
alias A.fun fun;
override void fun() { }
}
OK, but the problem remains equivalent. The programmer did modify in the
base class something that is unrelated whith what is currently
overridden in subclasses, and suddenly, all of them are broken. They all
have to be fixed with an alias or a forwarding override.
I think this is an issue.
Thinking more about this, I did notice that I almost never do a const
and a non const version of the same function when coding (either the
functionality require const or it doesn't, so the const and non const
version will do something very different, which is confusing).
Is it common ? If it is, it open the door to limiting override
possibilities when it come to const.non const, with the advantage of
being able to infer const in way more place than it is actually. I could
expand about that.
PS: Ha nice, I got this English dictionary to work in my newsgroup client !
