On 2011-06-03 23:55, Michael Shulman wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
And if you don't know about NVI, having a
virtual private function is just plain weird.
Well, it makes perfect sense to me, once given that in D, 'private'
allows access from anywhere in the sa
On 2011-06-03 21:52, Michael Shulman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
> > Try to compile with -w. My guess is that you will get a compiler error.
>
> Nope.
Then file a bug report on it. As I understand it, overriding a non-virtual
function in D should be illegal
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Try to compile with -w. My guess is that you will get a compiler error.
Nope.
On 2011-06-03 19:44, Michael Shulman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
> > I'd suggest opening a bug report.
>
> Okay, will do.
>
> > Regardless, I would have hoped that you'd get an error at compile
> > time about overriding a non-virtual function if package is
>
The bug report appears to already exist:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3258
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On 2011-06-03 14:55, Michael Shulman wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Jonathan M Davis
> wrote:
>> > And if you don't know about NVI, hav
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> I'd suggest opening a bug report.
Okay, will do.
> Regardless, I would have hoped that you'd get an error at compile
> time about overriding a non-virtual function if package is
> non-virtual
It appears that overriding a non-virtual, non
On 2011-06-03 14:55, Michael Shulman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
> > And if you don't know about NVI, having a
> > virtual private function is just plain weird.
>
> Well, it makes perfect sense to me, once given that in D, 'private'
> allows access from anywh
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> And if you don't know about NVI, having a
> virtual private function is just plain weird.
Well, it makes perfect sense to me, once given that in D, 'private'
allows access from anywhere in the same module, rather than only in
the defining
On 2011-06-03 11:59, Michael Shulman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
> >> However, given that in D, 'private' only means restricted to a
> >> *module*, it's less clear to me why private functions should be
> >> singled out as non-virtual. I might want certain met
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> However, given that in D, 'private' only means restricted to a
>> *module*, it's less clear to me why private functions should be
>> singled out as non-virtual. I might want certain methods to be
>> accessible only within a given module,
On 2011-06-03 11:13, Michael Shulman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
> > I don't really like the idea of private functions being virtual
> > by default though, so maybe your suggestion would be a good one.
>
> Speaking as a newbie with very little D experience,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> I don't really like the idea of private functions being virtual
> by default though, so maybe your suggestion would be a good one.
Speaking as a newbie with very little D experience, the idea of
private functions being non-virtual would m
On 2011-06-02 23:53, Kagamin wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4542
> > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2051
>
> Nothing prevents compiler from considering class private methods as final
> and allow implement interface private methods
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4542
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2051
Nothing prevents compiler from considering class private methods as final and
allow implement interface private methods (possibly with requirement for
`override` key
Thanks!
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On 2011-06-02 12:59, Michael Shulman wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Jonathan M Davis
> wrote:
>> > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4542
>> > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2051
>>
>> Thank
On 2011-06-02 12:59, Michael Shulman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
> > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4542
> > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2051
>
> Thank you! I think this answers my question completely; I just need
> to change
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4542
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2051
Thank you! I think this answers my question completely; I just need
to change "private" to "protected". Is there a place on the web
On 2011-06-02 12:01, Michael Shulman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
>
> wrote:
> > Private methods are non-virtual, so I'm pretty sure they are not supposed
> > to be allowed in an interface.
> >
> > But I suppose private could also mean private final, in which ca
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:01:31 -0400, Michael Shulman
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Private methods are non-virtual, so I'm pretty sure they are not
supposed to
be allowed in an interface.
But I suppose private could also mean private final, in which c
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> Private methods are non-virtual, so I'm pretty sure they are not supposed to
> be allowed in an interface.
>
> But I suppose private could also mean private final, in which case you have
> to provide an implementation for foo in the in
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 13:10:14 -0400, Michael Shulman
wrote:
Hi,
The following code fails the linker, complaining about an undefined
reference to 'foo':
interface A {
private int foo();
}
class B {
int bar(A x) { return x.foo(); }
}
void main() { }
But if I remove the 'private' quali
21 matches
Mail list logo
