On Thursday, 1 March 2012 at 07:45:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, March 01, 2012 08:26:00 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-03-01 01:53, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> package functions are currenly non-virtual.
>
> The spec claims that "all non-static non-private
> non-template member
> func tions are virtual," which would mean that package
> is supposed to
> be virtual. But from what I recall, the plan is to leave
> package as
> non-virtual. So, is that indeed the case and the spec needs
> to be fixed,
> or is package going to be made virtual at some point?
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
Is anyone even using "package"? I've basically never used it.
Well, it's the sort of thing that's more useful with larger
programs, so I
question how much it's being used, but it definitely can be
useful.
std.datetime will likely be using it in the near future, since
I'm working on
breaking it up into a package (leaving std.datetime to then
import everything
in the package).
But regardless, it's currently broken:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=143
- Jonathan M Davis
I agree, virtual package function would be nice. ATM, as a
workaround we use a package function which forwards the call to a
protected function, and give the constructors package protection
so only classes in the same package can inherit from it. That
works, but it's not perfect.
