aliasing base methods

[Johan Granberg]

Frank Benoit (keinfarbton) wrote:

> 
>>> 2.) make the override keyword required, to make it useful.
>> 
>> Not so sure about this one. It will introduce a lot of unnecessary typing
>> and that can be annoying if you want the function prototypes to fit into
>> 80 characters.
> 
> I think in any bigger software, the keyword override should be used
> consequently. It makes sure that a typo doesn't makes an overload
> instead of an override and vice versa. Which is a bug, very hard to find.
> 
> But actually this works only in one direction (1) and it cannot be
> enforced.
> 
> (1) Only in one direction means, you can make sure your override is an
> override, but you cannot make sure your overload is an overload. If
> "override" would be required, this check works in both directions. (no
> "override" means, its a not an override)
> 
> Another advantage is, in big programs, classes with many methods. You
> can be sure that a overridden method is marked as such. That make
> understanding of code easier.
> 
> I think every good editor can assist here very good and I believe, the
> benefit of an explicit "override" is higher than the cost of
> typing/autocompleting it.

I'm more concerned about redability when the lines get to long than typing.
And I also don't think that enforcement of overload/override is that
important, no other language I have used does this and if a class have so
many methods that they cant be kept track of is probably missdesigned.