new DIP47: Outlining member functions of aggregates

Walter Bright newshound2 at digitalmars.com
Sat Sep 7 22:40:08 PDT 2013


On 9/7/2013 9:46 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On an implementation note, I don't think that #5 is strong enough. I think
> that it should be an outright error if there is a difference between the
> declaration and definition rather than giving one precedence over the other.

I'll point out that C++ has equivalent behavior, and it has not resulted in any 
complaints I've ever heard. When you outline a C++ member function, you do not 
need to add 'static', 'private', 'virtual', and in fact you cannot add the 
latter two.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list