On 6/3/13 12:25 PM, Manu wrote:
You won't break every single method, they already went through that recently when override was made a requirement. It will only break the base declarations, which are far less numerous.
That's what I meant.
How can you justify the change to 'override' with a position like that? We have already discussed that we know PRECISELY the magnitude of breakage that will occur. It is: magnitude_of_breakage_from_override / total_number_of_derived_classes. A much smaller number than the breakage which was gladly accepted recently.
Well it's kinda too much relativism that the number of breakages is considered small because it's smaller than another number.
And the matter is far from trivial.
It is trivial. To paraphrase a classic: "I'm not taking away your ability to make everything final, you can type 'final:' as much as you like."
In fact, if you think this is trivial, then how did the override change ever get accepted? That is most certainly trivial by contrast, and far more catastrophic in terms of breakage.
That's a completely different issue, so this part of the argument can be considered destroyed.
Andrei
