Broken?

[deadalnix]

On Wednesday, 12 March 2014 at 12:32:14 UTC, Michel Fortin wrote:
> I'll add another argument to the mix.
>
> Currently, you can't have private/package functions that are 
> virtual, contrary to what TDPL says.
>
> To make things coherent we could change private function so 
> they become virtual by default. You might be able to see the 
> problem with this option: making private function virtual by 
> default is likely to add many performance regressions in 
> existing code, silently.
>

No.

In the case of private functions, by definition, the compiler
have all overrides in the module and can finalize what needs to
be.

> We could always keep things as they currently are: 
> private/package is not virtual, everything else is virtual 
> unless marked final. Honestly I'd like to se that go. The 
> protection attribute should have nothing to do with whether a 
> function is virtual or not.

That is horrible. Bad separation of concerns.