On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 20:52:17 UTC, Kapps wrote:
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 20:29:46 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 17:12:44 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:49:32 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:


Virtual by default will not change. Being able to negate the "final:" label is nice to have but not a must. Adding a keyword for that doesn't scale - it would mean we'd need to add one keyword to undo each label.

To that end, I thought we were moving towards a more scalable solution: like !final or final!false or final(false), which could be nice for metaprogramming.

-Steve

Yes that was the decision, and with the advantage that the
parameter can be computed at compile time.

I honestly don't see this as a noticeable advantage, at least in
the case of final. Not to mention you could just use "static
if(dovirtual) { result ~= "final(false)"; }".

That is a plus for generic code, and that work for virtual.

So there is reason to use something specific for virtual.
Consistency is a plus in its own right. Coming up with ad hoc
solution to every problem is an absolutely terrible way to design
a programming language.

Reply via email to