From -2694104409183803926 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,8c9f1307b83ac2db X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: anatoli Subject: Re: Q: virtual functions not overridable anymore? Date: 1997/09/25 Message-ID: <60bkqg$ch3@drn.zippo.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 275895504 References: <34213D4E.41C6@wizard.net> <6023vu$h9r@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <60a10k$ns@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> X-Original-Date: 24 Sep 1997 11:06:08 -0700 Organization: None X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ iQBVAwUBNCsFOky4NqrwXLNJAQHk0AH7BKGcDOdoSI4DGU7TslZT97a7I8F2oLGU L8SQMTEOwlTK/PMOug4rKuM/EMOvl2c3jskxlFM81scMmZsevA6K6A== =k2uz Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Originator: austern@isolde.mti.sgi.com In article <60a10k$ns@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Cristian says... [example with Shape, Square and AspectRatio snipped] >(IMO) The Square::AspectRatio() should be definitely a candidate to be >final. > >Remark 1. Square::AspectRatio() is an invariant of the Square with respect >to >the Rectangle::AspectRatio() which is not. Just one question. Why, oh why people keep demanding the "final" keyword, instead of demanding the "invariant" keyword? -- anatoli (at) ptc (dot) com --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles: Try just posting with your newsreader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu ]