From 5159629212285852685 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,8c9f1307b83ac2db X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: "Michael B. Taylor" Subject: Re: Q: virtual functions not overridable anymore? Date: 1997/09/08 Message-ID: <01bcba5f$681c0ee0$909c389d@mtayler>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271067001 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: 6 Sep 1997 01:00:27 GMT Reply-To: "Michael B. Taylor" Originator: austern@isolde.mti.sgi.com Organization: Microsoft Corp. X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ iQBVAwUBNBSmVUy4NqrwXLNJAQH+bQH/RHht+rxg5pv0gyu7c1zww2DJZI81tULx M7Ml0HsCX0KlOOwt7oZcMojYoTvkBtq/25GKJ4bUQ/Q/InhcbwkCnQ== =7xsM Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Colin Rafferty wrote in article ... > I think the point is that there is no good reason for wanting `final', > and lots of bad reasons. > > 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. I agree Steve's example was lucid. However, I think it could be equally well applied to any member function. Personally I have never needed nor wanted final, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't exist. If it is reasonable to make class methods non-virtual, it seems equally reasonable to remove the virtualness of a base classes members. --- [ 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 ]