On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:07:00 +1000, Bruno Medeiros
<brunodomedeirosATgmail@SPAM.com> wrote:
>
> Second, I just noticed something in the spec that seems inconsistent or
> in error (I'm surprised that no one else mentioned this):
I did and rewrote the docs for this.
http://www.users.bigpond.com.au/ddparnell/attr.html
> On http://www.digitalmars.com/d/attribute.html , Protection Attribute,
> it is said: "Private members cannot be overridden."
>
> Seems fine to me. But on http://www.digitalmars.com/d/function.html ,
> Virtual Functions, it is said: "Functions marked as final may not be
> overridden in a derived class, unless they are also private." !
> What this says not only seems a clear contradiction, but also broken
> design!
This is an example of poor English rather than anything else. A better
rendition might have gone along the lines of ....
Functions marked as final cannot be overridden in a derived class, and
marking a
private function as final is just ignored because a private function
can't
be seen by the overriding class anyway.
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
|
