Why do abstract class functions require definitions?

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On 2015-09-16 12:36, Marc Schütz wrote:

> Wouldn't the following behaviour be more useful as a default?
>
>      abstract class Foo {
>          void bar1() { }     // non-abstract, obviously
>          void bar2();        // abstract, because it's in an abstract class
>                              // (different from now)
>          extern void bar3(); // non-abstract, but defined externally
>      }

Currently "extern" has the meaning, at least on Windows, that the symbol 
will be visible outside a dynamic library.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg