Why do abstract class functions require definitions?

Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com
Thu Sep 17 08:14:41 PDT 2015


On 9/16/15 6:36 AM, Marc Schütz wrote:

> Wouldn't the following behaviour be more useful as a default?
>
>      abstract class Foo {
>          void bar1() { }     // non-abstract, obviously
>          void bar2();        // abstract, because it's in an abstract class
>                              // (different from now)
>          extern void bar3(); // non-abstract, but defined externally
>      }


My guess is that .di files need the bar2 syntax style.

-Steve


More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn mailing list