Re: abstract base class and class members

2012-03-05 Thread Jonathan M Davis
On Monday, March 05, 2012 11:32:39 Jesse Phillips wrote: > On Sunday, 4 March 2012 at 20:25:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > By the way, I wouldn't rely on much that ideone says about D at > > this point. > > It's still on version 2.042 of dmd, whereas the latest release > > is 2.058. > > > > -

Re: abstract base class and class members

2012-03-05 Thread Jesse Phillips
On Sunday, 4 March 2012 at 20:25:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: By the way, I wouldn't rely on much that ideone says about D at this point. It's still on version 2.042 of dmd, whereas the latest release is 2.058. - Jonathan M Davis Then ask for the latest version, and as David pointed out,

Re: abstract base class and class members

2012-03-04 Thread David
Am 04.03.2012 21:24, schrieb Jonathan M Davis: On Sunday, March 04, 2012 19:36:20 David wrote: Am 04.03.2012 19:22, schrieb H. S. Teoh: On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote: On 03/04/2012 06:16 PM, David wrote: Is this intended behaviour? http://ideone.com/xrvvL shouldn

Re: abstract base class and class members

2012-03-04 Thread Timon Gehr
On 03/04/2012 07:22 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: Makes one wonder, though... from an OO perspective, does it make sense to have overridable non-function members? What semantics would (should) that have? Yes, it does make sense. const/immutable/(final) fields can be covariant. OTOH, it is not eviden

Re: abstract base class and class members

2012-03-04 Thread Jonathan M Davis
On Sunday, March 04, 2012 19:36:20 David wrote: > Am 04.03.2012 19:22, schrieb H. S. Teoh: > > On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote: > >> On 03/04/2012 06:16 PM, David wrote: > >>> Is this intended behaviour? http://ideone.com/xrvvL > >>> > >>> shouldn't the 2nd writeln print

Re: abstract base class and class members

2012-03-04 Thread David
Am 04.03.2012 19:22, schrieb H. S. Teoh: On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote: On 03/04/2012 06:16 PM, David wrote: Is this intended behaviour? http://ideone.com/xrvvL shouldn't the 2nd writeln print the same as the first, well at least the same content of i? This is in

Re: abstract base class and class members

2012-03-04 Thread H. S. Teoh
On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 06:22:47PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote: > On 03/04/2012 06:16 PM, David wrote: > >Is this intended behaviour? http://ideone.com/xrvvL > > > >shouldn't the 2nd writeln print the same as the first, well at least the > >same content of i? > > This is intended behaviour. You have t

Re: abstract base class and class members

2012-03-04 Thread Timon Gehr
On 03/04/2012 06:16 PM, David wrote: Is this intended behaviour? http://ideone.com/xrvvL shouldn't the 2nd writeln print the same as the first, well at least the same content of i? This is intended behaviour. You have two distinct definitions of i. If you want to set i to 2 in the derived cla