Am 04.03.2012 19:22, schrieb H. S. Teoh:
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
Thanks for your answers.
Maybe we should also allow override for fields.
