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