[Issue 4542] TDPL NVI example results in linker error

2011-01-09 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4542


Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||and...@metalanguage.com
 AssignedTo|nob...@puremagic.com|and...@metalanguage.com


-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---


[Issue 4542] TDPL NVI example results in linker error

2010-08-11 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4542


Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jmdavisp...@gmail.com


--- Comment #2 from Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmail.com 2010-08-11 
10:13:06 PDT ---
NVI is a highly useful idiom, and generally-speaking, dmd is supposed to come
in line with TDPL rather than TDPL being in error. So, I'd definitely argue
that the access level should have nothing to do with the overridability of a
function, regardless of what was originally intended for D. We have final if we
want to make functions non-overridable. There's no need to overload access
level to make it do the same thing. I'd say that dmd and the spec should come
in line with TDPL in this case.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---