http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1449
--- Comment #12 from yebblies <yebbl...@gmail.com> 2011-06-16 07:22:09 PDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > > It does so implicitly. > > If you have > > Bar b = new Foo; > > and do > > b.foo(); > > the compiler will not be able to catch it, as it cannot know whether an > arbitrary Bar instance actually is an instance of Foo. So at runtime, a > deprecated function will be called, or attempted to be called. > > The spec probably does not cover this particular usecase, but it seems to me > that it is worth a warning. It just doesn't make sense to have an > implementation be deprecated, when the same function in the interface is not. I agree. I think it should be an error to override a non-deprecated function with a deprecated one. It should probably be an error to override a deprecated function with a non-deprecated one too. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
