From 3111199599569049046 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: f78e5,ccbfcafab96cf493 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-26 22:22:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lo=EFc?= Joly Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Proposol to increase robustness of programs Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 06:21:00 GMT Organization: Wanadoo, l'internet avec France Telecom Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ Message-ID: <3C028E9C.C5D82E19@wanadoo.fr> References: <3BFE97B3.91430FB1@wanadoo.fr> <3C006716.4070201@earthlink.net> <3C025715.9050709@earthlink.net> X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1006842064 mail2news:20554 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) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Nov 2001 18:48:49 GMT X-Accept-Language: en Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU id RAA07454 Lines: 43 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.std.c++:8311 Edward Diener wrote: >=20 > In the example given, the original poster wanted an addition to the >=20 > language added because he missed the fact that a member function declar= ed >=20 > in a base class was virtual. I am sorry if I did not express myself clearly enough. What I miss is the possibility to ensure that a virtual function overrides a function in a base class, and is not the declaration of a brand new function. The case when I find it most usefull is in case of a modification in the base class, that has to be applied to all derived classes. [...] > My personal view of C++ is that the spirit of the language is that the > programmer is in charge and should know how to do things within the > language syntax. Adding language syntax to make it easier to use the > language effectively is one thing but adding language syntax to prevent > a programmer making an error seems to me to be wrong. What is your opinion about the use of protected, private, declaring and not defining a copy constructor... ? I think my proposal goes in the same direction : Helping the programmer to avoid errors. Removing those in a correct program would not change the program, but using them helped to make the program correct in the first place. My proposal incurs no runtime penalty, and I think it would not be difficult to implement it. [...] --=20 Lo=EFc --- [ 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 ]