From -236538578816233334 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: f78e5,ccbfcafab96cf493 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-28 09:58:01 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Jim Barry" Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Proposol to increase robustness of programs Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:57:11 GMT Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ Message-ID: References: <3BFE97B3.91430FB1@wanadoo.fr> X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1006970235 mail2news:9966 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mail2News-Path: news.demon.net!mulga.cs.mu.oz.au X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:32:19 GMT Lines: 28 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.std.c++:8329 Lo�c Joly wrote: > I would like to make a proposal for an addition to the C++ > standard. It pertains with virtual function that we want to > be sure exist in the base class. The "override" keyword is a fairly popular feature request for C++. It appears relatively easy to implement, easy to teach, breaks no existing code, and introduces no conflicts with existing language rules. The main argument against it seems to be that you can get a similar effect by making the virtual function pure in the base class. However, this stops working at the second level of derivation. Given that there are situations where it is necessary to override a non-pure virtual, it seems useful for there to be a way of ensuring that the override actually overrides something. So I would be in favour of this proposal (though I don't like the "=1" idea). Unfortunately, for some reason the "override" keyword doesn't seem to get much support from implementors or committee members. - Jim --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html ]