Automatic method overriding in sub-classes

[bitwise via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 23:15:39 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 22:23:15 UTC, bitwise wrote:
>> [...]
>
> -H also keeps the body of template functions so I would assume 
> it would treat auto overrides the same.
>

Well.. It's not going to just work. Dmd will surely have to be 
told what to do.

>> [...]
>
> I think you are correct, there is a scenario where one might 
> want to provide a header to a class and not include the auto 
> override body. An alternative solution could be that if you 
> provide a header to a class and don't include the auto override 
> body, then the auto override functionality is removed and the 
> method is treated as a regular method from that point on(with 
> the most recent version of the method being the one that is 
> used). This would allow the class to still be inherited later 
> on.
>

I have to disagree with this. A function's meaning should not 
change because it's definition is removed.

>>     [...]
>
> A.foo() or B.foo() seems to work instead of super.super.foo() 
> or super.foo()

Ah, ok. I'll take your word for it(on my phone).

I'm wondering if it would be worth it to make a DIP for this. We 
could sort out the details and discuss the use and ab-use cases ;)

I myself would be a bit reluctant to start on the DIP right this 
second though, as I don't currently have the knowledge/time to 
back it with a proof of concept implementation.

    Bit