override deprecated

[Steve Teale]

I'm sure this was discussed at great length sometime, but 
yesterday (and the day before) I had one of those days where I 
turned on warnings , and told the compiler not to ignore 
deprecated things.

Most of the warnings were probably due to keyboard repeats where 
I had held a key down fractionally too long while typing the 
semicolon to end whatever. The other common case was fall-through 
in case statements - in that case, very insidious, and the 
warnings very helpful

All of the deprecated things in in my cleanup were those many 
cases where I had provided alternative definitions for virtual 
functions in derived classes without using override.

Now I can vaguely see the reasoning for insistence on the 
override keyword. It's kind of a consequence of Walter's decision 
that all member functions are virtual unless ...

But as I plodded through my code base, I came across not a single 
situation where the declaration of a virtual function in some 
derived class was an error.

I found a few where the declarations were redundant, in that they 
were the same in effect as the function defined in the parent 
class, but I was left feeling cheated. Being picky about the code 
had not given me any tangible benefit.

Would it be reasonable to ask for the compiler to generate a 
warning if it found that the definition of a virtual function was 
the same - disregarding white space - as that in the parent 
class. That would make me feel that there was some small benefit 
for the insistence on 'override'.