On Friday, 7 March 2014 at 02:15:44 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 3/6/2014 11:48 AM, Steve Teale wrote:
I can get tantalizingly close to what I want using the extra
constructor argument.
In the base class I define a template function:
string initString(T)()
{
return "string sname =
\""~T.stringof~"\"~to!string(++nextOid);"
"HandlerDelegates[] ahdg = [ HandlerDelegates( &"~
T.stringof~".notifyHandler, &"~T.stringof~".undoHandler)];";
}
Then in the leaf class constructor I can just do:
mixin(initString!Arrow());
super(aw, parent, sname, AC_ARROW, ACGroups.SHAPES, ahdg);
Sadly the compiler does not complain if I comment out the leaf
notifyHandler()
method, cos its virtual, and there's one in its parent class.
Does contract programming to provide a way to say that some
function definition is required?
This is where I'd like to be able to say:
class Base
{
// Method is called directly, but unlike a final
// method it can be overidden in a derived class.
direct bool notifyHandler(...) { ... }
}
class Inter
{
// Kill the warning about hiding the base class method with
override
override bool notifyHandler(...) { ... }
}
As a side benefit, I think that mixing in a string generated by a
template function gives me a way of generating something
approximating a mixin template that allows more than just
declarations - insertion of parameterized code at compile time ;=)
Steve
