Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
Consider:
class A {
abstract void fun() {}
}
The class defines a function that is at the same time abstract (so it
requires overriding in derivees) and has implementation.
Currently the compiler disallows creation of objects of type A, although
technically that is feasible given that A defines the abstract method.
Should A be instantiable? What designs would that help or hinder?
Uh... why?
Because I want to give a good argument one way or another in TDPL. FWIW, "I
can't imagine why you'd ever..." or "Never needed that" are not strong
enough arguments.
But.. you mark something abstract when you want it to be .. abstract.
How would you argue that abstract is basically a no-op when used on
methods with bodies?
It's not a no-op. Try it.
Andrei
