Broken?

[Dmitry Olshansky]

12-Mar-2014 23:51, Sean Kelly пишет:
> On Wednesday, 12 March 2014 at 17:08:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
> wrote:
>> On 3/12/14, 10:05 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 12 March 2014 at 16:46:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/14, 4:40 AM, Manu wrote:
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>> There you go, it's not even hypothetical.
>>>>
>>>> I think the example given works against your argument.
>>>>
>>>> Andrei
>>>
>>> How so? The example was his argument verbatim.
>>
>> His argument assumed at core that the library designer knows better
>> than the library user what the customization points are, and that most
>> functions are virtual by mistake.
>
> And this argument is absolutely correct, in my experience.  By
> making virtuality an explicit choice, the library designer is
> specifying that a given function is a part of the published
> interface for a class and overriding it has some explicit purpose
> that will be maintained over time.

Seconded.


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky