Undefined symbol for, apparently, valid code?

[unleashy via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 06:48:57 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> Templates+classes = require function body.
>
> Why? Templated methods are not virtual, they are final and 
> cannot be inherited (so its a little strange that the override 
> is valid).

Ah well. I would've expected a compiler error, not an obscure 
linker error, but as Arafel said:

>Finally, have also in mind that if the function had been 
>declared abstract (as it arguably should), a compile-time error 
>would have been generated [2].

Maybe it was an error on my part for not declaring the function 
as abstract? My view was that the abstract attribute on a class 
marks all its members as virtual unless they have a body, which 
is how it works in, say, Java.

Still, kinda odd that the linker is the one to call me out, and 
not the compiler. Pretty unexpected.