Abstract functions in child classes

[Adam]

I grant you that I should test it, and I never said otherwise. If
I'm attacking a strawman, it's the same one that was just put in
front of me as a misinterpretation of my argument.
What I contest and addressed was a test for the sole purpose of
determining if my class, assumed to be non-abstract, was
instantiable or not.

Other tests being necessary for something to be good programming or
not, the issue here is that a test or a manual perusal of the base
class for changes (specifically, for the addition of new abstract
members) is required *just* to assert that my class is or is not
abstract.

Yes, I should test my class, but I shouldn't have to test it just to
ensure that it's the class I *intended* to create, rather than the
one the compiler assumes because of a base class change.