[Issue 5129] More strict 'abstract' management

[d-bugmail at puremagic.com]

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


Walter Bright <bugzilla at digitalmars.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |bugzilla at digitalmars.com
         Resolution|                            |INVALID


--- Comment #5 from Walter Bright <bugzilla at digitalmars.com> 2012-01-23 23:46:05 PST ---
This is not a bug, as in another module there could be a class C that derives
from B and implements foo().

As documented, D accepts non-abstract functions with no body declared as:

   void foo();

with the idea that the user will be supplying a body somewhere else - perhaps
even a C function or an assembler one. It's another way of doing encapsulation
by having an opaque implementation. In fact, it's used by the TypeInfo's.

I object to calling this "incredibly sloppy".

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