[Issue 2036] Hiding rules too restrictive

[d-bugmail at puremagic.com]

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2036





------- Comment #4 from andrei at metalanguage.com  2008-04-26 02:13 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> On 26/04/2008, d-bugmail at puremagic.com <d-bugmail at puremagic.com> wrote:
> >  On what grounds are you saying it's a valid warning?
> 
> I consider it good programming practice that if you're going to
> override, you should override all overloads, even if only to prove to
> the compiler that you haven't forgotten they exist.

This keeps things in the subjective realm. I don't consider good programming
practice to override all overloads even when there is no danger that one
overload will be called instead of the other.

> > so I refute the claim the warning is valid.
> 
> You "dispute", not "refute". There's a difference. :-)

What I meant to say was that if you want to sustain your claim, you have the
burden of proof. So far your first argument was "it's a valid warning", and the
second is "I consider avoiding the warning a good programming practice". Both
are tenuous. The warning is supposed to warn about a dangerous situations. You
need to come with a valid example of something dangerous happening as a
consequence of the code going through.


--