DIP 1007 Preliminary Review Round 1

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 11 May 2017 at 00:04:52 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> I prefer the first one. The reason is simply because it doesn't 
> require any new grammar. The override requirement is already a 
> protection against changing base class. In this case, we have 
> two possible outcomes:
>
> 1. The base class finally implements the method and removes 
> future. In this case, the derived class continues to function 
> as expected, overriding the new function.
>
> 2. The base class removes the method. In this case, the 
> override now fails to compile. This is not as ideal, as this 
> does not result in a version that will compile with two 
> consecutive versions of the base. But there is a possible path 
> for this too -- mark it as @deprecated @future :)
>
> -Steve

Sounds reasonable. I'll submit an update to the DIP.