Should operator overload methods be virtual?
Walter Bright
newshound1 at digitalmars.com
Fri Nov 27 15:32:21 PST 2009
Making them not virtual would also make them not overridable, they'd all
be implicitly final.
Is there any compelling use case for virtual operator overloads? Keep in
mind that any non-virtual function can still be a wrapper for another
virtual method, so it is still possible (with a bit of extra work) for a
class to have virtual operator overloads. It just wouldn't be the default.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list