From -4791727580187111136 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,8c9f1307b83ac2db X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: brett.ger-ry@uni-sys.com (Brett) Subject: Re: Q: virtual functions not overridable anymore? Date: 1997/09/08 Message-ID: <5v1i5j$qrg$1@mail.pl.unisys.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271058631 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> X-Original-Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 19:06:22 GMT Originator: austern@isolde.mti.sgi.com Organization: UC X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ iQBVAwUBNBSm7Uy4NqrwXLNJAQFE9AH/TgWV/ssd6kMnBu+icxytYvdx2CMGXZr8 I0gd2WyZEEZwyMGzv/6nkI+TKpXfRFnTky/Qp39U/AMBqn3KmyXyrQ== =QQcc Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ In article , Colin Rafferty wrote: > >Steve Clamage gave a lucid example of why this is a bad idea. I have >yet to see an example of why this is useful. I cannot imagine a >real-life use for `final', other than due to a poorly designed base >class. > Have you taken a look at the Java 1.02 API? I think the number of virutal functions that are eventually defined final in a derived class number in the hundreds. Personally, I think that a function should almost never be defined final because it cancels out much of the usefulness of object-oriented code design. I want to be able to extend and modify my classes as much as possible. -Brett ********************************************************** * For e-mail replies omit all dashes from the * * address in the "From: " field. * ********************************************************** --- [ 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 ]