[Issue 5129] More strict 'abstract' management

[d-bugmail at puremagic.com]

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5129


Stewart Gordon <smjg at iname.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|diagnostic                  |link-failure, spec
                 CC|                            |smjg at iname.com


--- Comment #2 from Stewart Gordon <smjg at iname.com> 2010-10-30 07:18:19 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Declarations like "foo" in your example work roughly like they do in C++
> (except that it makes less sense in D). Just look at how object.di works: it's
> full of bodyless non-abstract methods.

It was once the case that bodyless functions are implicitly abstract.  This was
partly changed
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog1.html#new080
but I don't know what change was made to the spec to reflect this.

I think the underlying problem is that there's no mandatory explicit notation
for externally defined functions.

> All dmd can do is to cause a linking error. Even though it's an obscure feature
> with questionable value.

Not necessarily - it could realise that classes A and B and never used and so
generate no code for them.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------