Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
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.
Yeah, not *currently*, but isn't that what you're proposing?
No. I think it would help going back to my original message instead of
asking one-liner questions. This would work much better in real life,
but it's a time sink in a newsgroup. You spend five seconds on asking a
question with a foregone answer just because you don't want to invest
fifteen seconds in re-reading my initial post, and then you have me
spend five minutes explain things again. It's counter-productive.
If a class defines an abstract method and also provides a body for it,
it still requires the derived class to override the method. So abstract
still has some meaning.
Umm... so it defines a body that will never be used because that class
can't be instantiated and the method must be redefined by subclasses?
Isn't that the same as "doesn't provide a body"?
