https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8845
--- Comment #13 from Manu <[email protected]> 2013-11-27 04:53:07 PST --- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #8) > > (In reply to comment #6) > > > (In reply to comment #5) > > > > I don't think there is. That would have been far too sensible :) > > > > > > Well, if you can remember where the discussion and agreement was, it > > > might be a > > > good idea to make one and link it. > > > > IIRC, it was actually you that proposed the winning deprecation path. > > It was comparable to the introduction of mandatory override. I think you > > suggested one version introduces a deprecation warning where override is > > stated > > but virtual is not present on the base, then the next version enforces it. > > I eventually realized that override implies virtual, and therefore only the > introducing methods need to be modified. Up until that point I was pretty > skeptical. Yes, it's a much less damaging change than the introduction of 'override', since it only affects the base, rather than all branches/leaves as override did. And now that we have override, introduction of virtual is perfectly safe, we can properly produce accurate warnings/errors where it's missing. > I've created an enhancement for it: issue 11616 > Feel free to CC yourselves if you're interested. I'm just creating a DIP for it... should I bother? -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
