Abstract functions in child classes

Adam Adam at Anizi.com
Fri Dec 2 09:24:11 PST 2011

Ok, fine, let me put it THIS way.

Suppose I use a parent library, and *I* don't update it.

The USER of my library provides an updated version for some
unrelated reason.

So, NOT testing that something is instantiable or not - JUST that
it's instantiable - is bad programming...

...but requiring 8 characters to a class definition *is ok*?

So the only way to deal with this is *discipline*?

What you're telling me is that instead of requiring a class to be
explicitly abstract or not, it's instead a requirement of *good
programming* to test that something IS, in fact, ABSTRACT OR NOT?


More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn mailing list