On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote: > On 03/04/2012 06:16 PM, David wrote: > >Is this intended behaviour? http://ideone.com/xrvvL > > > >shouldn't the 2nd writeln print the same as the first, well at least the > >same content of i? > > This is intended behaviour. You have two distinct definitions of i. > If you want to set i to 2 in the derived class, do so in the class > constructor.
Yeah, only member functions can be overridden in the derived class (and even then, D requires you to explicitly state that with the 'override' keyword). Makes one wonder, though... from an OO perspective, does it make sense to have overridable non-function members? What semantics would (should) that have? T -- "Life is all a great joke, but only the brave ever get the point." -- Kenneth Rexroth
