subject:"\[Issue 3581\] \"private\" attribute breaks \"override\""

[Issue 3581] "private" attribute breaks "override"

2018-10-18 Thread d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3581 Mathias LANG changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED CC|

[Issue 3581] private attribute breaks override

2012-01-29 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3581 yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Version|1.051 |D1

[Issue 3581] private attribute breaks override

2012-01-29 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3581 yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rayerd@gmail.com ---

[Issue 3581] private attribute breaks override

2011-07-08 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3581 yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||yebbl...@gmail.com ---

[Issue 3581] private attribute breaks override

2011-07-08 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3581 yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||blazej.podsia...@gmail.com

[Issue 3581] private attribute breaks override

2011-05-07 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3581 --- Comment #15 from Rainer Schuetze r.sagita...@gmx.de 2011-05-06 23:37:50 PDT --- (In reply to comment #13) See proposed patch and problems with patch:

[Issue 3581] private attribute breaks override

2011-03-30 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3581 --- Comment #14 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2011-03-30 04:39:53 PDT --- The failure is probably related to bug 2525 and 3525: functions in interfaces aren't dealt with correctly. -- Configure issuemail:

[Issue 3581] private attribute breaks override

2011-03-29 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3581 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 3581] private attribute breaks override

2011-03-01 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3581 Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 3581] private attribute breaks override

2011-03-01 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3581 Rainer Schuetze r.sagita...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||r.sagita...@gmx.de

[Issue 3581] private attribute breaks override

2011-03-01 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3581 --- Comment #6 from Rainer Schuetze r.sagita...@gmx.de 2011-03-01 12:49:09 PST --- Thinking about it again, I might have missed the point completely. I don't have TDPL handy right now, but IIRC it allowed overriding the private functions in

[Issue 3581] private attribute breaks override

2011-03-01 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3581 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com 2011-03-01 14:48:17 PST --- They can't be kept apart as long as you can't specify whether a function is virtual or not. In C++, a member function is not virtual unless you mark it as

[Issue 3581] private attribute breaks override

2011-03-01 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3581 --- Comment #8 from Vladimir thecybersha...@gmail.com 2011-03-01 15:37:06 PST --- (In reply to comment #7) They can't be kept apart as long as you can't specify whether a function is virtual or not. What do you mean? Isn't that exactly what

[Issue 3581] private attribute breaks override

2011-03-01 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3581 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com 2011-03-01 16:08:37 PST --- Final says that a function can't be overridden. That doesn't necessarily make it non-virtual. For instance, if that function is already overriding another

[Issue 3581] private attribute breaks override

2011-03-01 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3581 --- Comment #10 from Vladimir thecybersha...@gmail.com 2011-03-01 16:25:18 PST --- Can protected replace private in all intended usage of virtual private functions? If so, has it been considered to simply forbid virtual private functions (with

[Issue 3581] private attribute breaks override

2011-03-01 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3581 --- Comment #11 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2011-03-01 16:56:18 PST --- Regardless of this, the patch is still valid (if a function isn't virtual, you shouldn't be allowed to mark it as override). The question of whether private means

[Issue 3581] private attribute breaks override

2011-03-01 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3581 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com 2011-03-01 17:35:58 PST --- True. The problem is that dmd doesn't generally complain about invalid attributes. And so this case is included. The patch does fix this one instance of