Re: Why do abstract class functions require definitions?

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On 9/16/15 6:36 AM, Marc Schütz wrote:

Wouldn't the following behaviour be more useful as a default?

     abstract class Foo {
         void bar1() { }     // non-abstract, obviously
         void bar2();        // abstract, because it's in an abstract class
                             // (different from now)
         extern void bar3(); // non-abstract, but defined externally
     }

My guess is that .di files need the bar2 syntax style.

-Steve