From 4290604292649622862 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,8c9f1307b83ac2db X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: Mark Wilden Subject: Re: Q: virtual functions not overridable anymore? Date: 1997/09/11 Message-ID: <34172C06.23D4@mWilden.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271672883 References: <01bcb109$1e790180$433574cf@worldnet.worldnet.att.net> <3404A0AE.6F7E@Eng.Sun.COM> <5uimip$l56@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <340D93AA.643A@Eng.Sun.COM> <01bcb951$ea80a440$909c389d@mtayler> <5v1i5j$qrg$1@mail.pl.unisys.com> X-Original-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:23:50 -0700 Organization: The Mark Wilden Company X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ iQBVAwUBNBhNhky4NqrwXLNJAQGfkgIAuBlopoEK37kDhaPMTVKijgWmeWqmvwty w8PLnFfYmm96NKWsQ+uU6Xuz/8Y/e3IVGXODUH3fHUXU9GBNPlMQoA== =nkPr Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Originator: austern@isolde.mti.sgi.com Colin Rafferty wrote: > > That is exactly my point. It is fascistic for a subclass designer to > override the design of the base class designer. I'd say the exact opposite (or perhaps you meant to, as well?). The subclasser has to use the baseclasser's code, but not the other way around. Therefore the baseclasser should usually not seek to predict every possible way the class could be subclassed, and instead permit flexibility where not absolutely semantically invalid. --- [ 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 ]