Abstract functions in child classes
regan at netmail.co.nz
Fri Dec 2 09:36:53 PST 2011
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 17:24:11 -0000, Adam <Adam at anizi.com> wrote:
> 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?
No-one is saying this, this is a "strawman". What has been said, is that
if you were to distribute a library you should test it before releasing it.
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn