I agree, NVI really looks like a nice idiom/pattern to me, I'd hate to loose it.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Jonathan M Davis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jmdavisprog@gmail.com">jmdavisprog@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div></div><div class="h5">On Friday 13 August 2010 23:14:02 Christian Kamm wrote:<br>
> Andrej Mitrovic wrote:<br>
> > TPDL, page 216: "Making an overridable function private in an<br>
> > interface..prevents an implementation from calling the super function".<br>
> ><br>
> > But the code example above compiles and runs fine.<br>
><br>
> See <a href="http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4542" target="_blank">http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4542</a> .<br>
><br>
> By the D spec, private implies final. That means unimplemented private<br>
> methods in interfaces have little use. Also 'private override' should be an<br>
> error.<br>
><br>
> Or spec and compiler should be changed to be in line with TDPL.<br>
><br>
> Christian<br>
<br>
</div></div>Generally speaking, if the spec and TDPL are in conflict, TDPL is supposed to<br>
win. Still, until Walter says something about it or it's fixed, we won't know for<br>
sure. I really do think that TDPL should win out in this case though. It would<br>
not be good to be unable to do NVI.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
- Jonathan M Davis<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>