[Issue 5129] More strict 'abstract' management

[d-bugmail at puremagic.com]

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



--- Comment #3 from nfxjfg at gmail.com 2010-10-30 14:22:28 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> 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.

Not sure, but I remember one case (far post dmd 1.000) where dmd silently
accepted a function without body as member of an abstract class, while it
caused linker errors on LDC.

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