Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[Daniel Murphy]

"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:jjh9uh$1vto$1 at digitalmars.com...
>
> My understanding is that the *only* thing preventing vitrual template 
> functions is the possibility of pre-compiled closed-source static libs. 
> Which is why I've long been in favor of allowing vitrual template 
> functions *as long as* there's no closed-source static libs preventing it. 
> Why should OSS have to pay costs that only apply to closed source?
>

That's not really it...

The problem is that vtables contain every virtual function of a class - and 
if you instantiate a template function with a new type, it would require a 
new vtable entry.  Therefore you need to know how every template function in 
every derived class is instantiated before you can build the base class 
vtable.  This doesn't work with D's compilation model.

>
> Now, as for whether or not D actually *does* omit the vtable entry for 
> non-override finals, I wouldn't know. Although I seem to vaguely remember 
> doing optimizations once that seemed to imply it did. If that's so, I 
> don't know whether its guaranteed per D spec or just 
> implementation-defined. A UFCS approach would definitely be guaranteed not 
> to affect the vtable, of course.
>

D (dmd) does not create a vtable entry for final functions that don't 
override anything.  It's in the frontend, so it should be the same for all 
the d compilers.