System programming in D (Was: The God Language)

[Walter Bright]

On 1/5/2012 1:03 PM, Manu wrote:
>     That is the case with overriding a non-virtual function - the compiler will
>     compile it anyway, and most of the time it will work. That's what makes it
>     so eeevil.
>
>
> I saw today, or last night, someone suggesting a keyword to make non-virtual
> override explicit, and error otherwise. Which actually sounded like a really
> good idea to me, and also addresses this problem.

That's correct, it does address it. But not for C++.

>     The right thing should be the default.
> But I fundamentally disagree your choice is 'right'..

Sure.

> This is obviously subjective, so I don't think that's a fair assertion.

By 'right', I don't necessarily mean 'the most efficient'. I mean that the code 
should be correct. It's ok if extra work is involved in creating the most 
efficient version. For example:

     int a;

automatically initializes a to zero. This is correct. If you want it to remain 
uninitialized,

     int a = void;

which will be faster in the cases where the compiler cannot optimize away a 
redundant initialization of a. But, it is dangerous because the compiler cannot 
always prove that a is initialized before use, hence it is not the default.


> But as I've previously said, I understand this can't change now, I've let it go :P

I understand, I'm just explaining my point of view, and you're just explaining 
yours.