http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2946
Jacob Carlborg <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #10 from Jacob Carlborg <[email protected]> 2013-01-21 11:12:53 PST --- (In reply to comment #0) > > On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:11:23 -0300, Ary Borenszweig > A class can either be abstract or not abstract. Currently in D, if you > don't mark a class as abstract, it can still be it if it contains an > abstract method: > > class Foo { > > abstract void someAbstract(); > > void nonAbstract() { > } > > } > > When designing a class, you have in mind whether the class is going to > be abstract or not. If it's not going to be abstract, you want the > compiler to help you by telling you "You made a mistake. This class is > still abstract because you didn't implement method foo". > > So I want to extend Foo with a class Bar, but I want Bar to be not abstract. > > class Bar : Foo { > } > > I compile, and it gives no error, of course. But I want there to be an > error there. There might be a problem with this since D supports separate compilation. There can be another object file that contains the implementation of Bar.someAbstract. I'm not sure if this applies here. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
