220 13322 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ville Voutilainen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Tighten rules for virtual override keyword combination Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 18:37:51 +0300 Lines: 30 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <19267205-7e26-4c12-b9b4-f26ab2f99eb7@isocpp.org> <803262EF-88B4-40B0-AC9B-7C7356CDE56A@gmail.com> <54274B57.6040007@gmail.com> <8DC1AED8-83B6-453A-A93A-EAB6AF942968@gmail.com> <39638C85-5546-444B-A7AA-F873947777B4@gmail.com> <22C84181-5761-4744-AC90-6E252B5CB1E4@gmail.com> <9367C570-6D36-4E88-BFD3-85F5A632DEDE@gmail.com> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1412005189 4733 80.91.229.3 (29 Sep 2014 15:39:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:39:49 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5JHI7A7ALRBUHZUWQQKGQE7L6FSWY@isocpp.org Mon Sep 29 17:39:42 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-pa0-f72.google.com ([209.85.220.72]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XYd1O-0005N0-01 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 17:37:54 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-pa0-f72.google.com with SMTP id kq14sf37826621pab.11 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 08:37:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=KE/iUp6smc0JdnA0b7lWgCG6Hvcgt5wszZU7BGAiH5k=; b=dJOLMdn3UPXM/l2tXGvdfMilwgenpJMjxvOCGLasNkfbgasmXNG3eyHUYuY5K0YCf1 h+tlqA25OfStKrD+2ackR4rKG+8XsDN2A8RA7Izz9bejq4HU0PRrQZG5StIoIhKNWP8r vg/K1PZRxFnqOng5/9xRFQcKZQGE+6hhQLY1TBMgGTSP7nHAn15gZ1d0B3MIiD3dStx0 tyoTRc0EWNhNDBO5F0e34eNLFZ6hxQUkR6gLZLQDo5OSozl+G19rpEcTmT+kAh60GPBN WDY9btf480HssFwEyLFO+EG/sbz3L1Db+0ETS4vTsXU2nTGS+MJbSwXx+ACn3BHkMrfA wIjQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmcQhe+YEzLK79PGoY7c3+DTzJP3ia7OlC1haQ7zroOAJigIhch3zeX8dtGVNM+9ShajKPa X-Received: by 10.66.245.111 with SMTP id xn15mr25328535pac.9.1412005072580; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 08:37:52 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.50.79.168 with SMTP id k8ls2271561igx.6.canary; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 08:37:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.72.73 with SMTP id b9mr18434732igv.0.1412005071948; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 08:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-ie0-x22b.google.com (mail-ie0-x22b.google.com [2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fp18si12224432icb.54.2014.09.29.08.37.51 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Sep 2014 08:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b; Original-Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id rp18so1734952iec.2 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 08:37:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.122.5 with SMTP id lo5mr36050089igb.25.1412005071807; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 08:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.42.44.8 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 08:37:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9367C570-6D36-4E88-BFD3-85F5A632DEDE@gmail.com> X-Original-Sender: ville.voutilainen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ville.voutilainen@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:13322 Archived-At: On 29 September 2014 18:18, David Krauss wrote: >> Or it demonstrates a very deliberate design choice, rather than a >> fundamental misunderstanding. > The deliberate choice *is* the misunderstanding. When one implements an abstract class, s/he should read its documentation, or be familiar enough beforehand, to know its public interface. I am not talking about a misunderstanding of any kind. I'm talking about cases where it's necessary to hide a function in a base class, and cases where people know what they are doing and what the consequences are and how to alleviate the consequences. >> That was an example for a potential use of the combination of virtual >> and final. It's allowed because >> it has potential uses, so forbidding it would need strong motivation, > Not really, the alternative wouldn't have been to forbid final without override, but to let final imply I never suggested forbidding final without override as an alternative for anything. And whatever the alternative would've supposed to be in some hypothetical world, those alternatives were not suggested strongly enough, or perhaps at all, so we didn't choose them. Changing such a decision will be hard. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. .