D.gnu - Interfaces versus unimplemented virtual functions
- Giles Constant <giles spacepigs.com> Jun 28 2004
- Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> Jun 28 2004
- Ilya Minkov <minkov cs.tum.edu> Jun 28 2004
Hiya,
I'm a little bit confused as to how to implement something. In C++, I would
write this:
class Base {
int x;
virtual void function() = 0;
}
ie, it's a base class, which has an int, and a function which must be
implemented by any subclasses.
In D, there doesn't appear to be an equivalent to the "= 0" syntax, and
interfaces won't let me have integers!
What's the equivalent style?
Thanks!
Giles
Jun 28 2004
Giles Constant wrote:Hiya, I'm a little bit confused as to how to implement something. In C++, I would write this: class Base { int x; virtual void function() = 0; } ie, it's a base class, which has an int, and a function which must be implemented by any subclasses. In D, there doesn't appear to be an equivalent to the "= 0" syntax, and interfaces won't let me have integers! What's the equivalent style? Thanks!
What you're looking for is the abstract keyword: class Base { int x; abstract void function(); } (by the way, this is kind of an odd place to post this. D.gnu is mainly about GCC-related issues as opposed to the D language itself) -- andy
Jun 28 2004
abstract class Base { int x; virtual void function(); }
-eye Giles Constant schrieb:Hiya, I'm a little bit confused as to how to implement something. In C++, I would write this: class Base { int x; virtual void function() = 0; } ie, it's a base class, which has an int, and a function which must be implemented by any subclasses. In D, there doesn't appear to be an equivalent to the "= 0" syntax, and interfaces won't let me have integers! What's the equivalent style? Thanks! Giles
Jun 28 2004









Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> 