http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2196


diggory.ha...@gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |CLOSED




------- Comment #3 from diggory.ha...@gmail.com  2009-04-23 08:22 -------
Agreed.

I think what I was unsure on is why the linker wanted the definitions of an
abstract class that wasn't (attempted to be) used. But of course having to
explicitly mark such functions as abstract does make it clear whether or not
the function was intended to be defined in that class.


-- 

Reply via email to