It's been a while since Manu convinced Walter and Andrei to introduce a virtual Keyword and to change the default from virtual methods to final methods.
Anything new? Anybody working on that? I would love to see that soon.

On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 09:37:07PM +0200, Namespace wrote:
> It's been a while since Manu convinced Walter and Andrei to
> introduce a virtual Keyword and to change the default from virtual
> methods to final methods.
> Anything new? Anybody working on that? I would love to see that
> soon.

This is going to break a lot of code. We'd need some kind of deprecation path. And even then, it may anger a lot of existing users.


T

-- 
Turning your clock 15 minutes ahead won't cure lateness---you're just making time go faster!

On 9/9/13, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> And even then, it may anger a lot of existing users.

I'm not sure about that. It seems people who actually write class-based code would prefer to have this (that's my limited analysis of IRC comments :p).

On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 09:52:21PM +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 9/9/13, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> > And even then, it may anger a lot of existing users.
> 
> I'm not sure about that. It seems people who actually write class-based code would prefer to have this (that's my limited analysis of IRC comments :p).

Well, then I stand corrected. :)


T

-- 
What do you get if you drop a piano down a mineshaft? A flat minor.

On 9/9/13, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> Well, then I stand corrected. :)

You may sit. You get a D.

On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:05:18PM +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 9/9/13, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> > Well, then I stand corrected. :)
> 
> You may sit. You get a D.

Just what I needed: another D in programming. :-P


T

-- 
A computer doesn't mind if its programs are put to purposes that don't match their names. -- D. Knuth

On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 19:52:34 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 9/9/13, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
>> And even then, it may anger a lot of existing users.
>
> I'm not sure about that. It seems people who actually write
> class-based code would prefer to have this (that's my limited analysis
> of IRC comments :p).

So then: what's the matter? When does it starts? ;)
It is much more important than those unnecessary DIP's like 47 / 48.

On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 19:48:50 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 09:37:07PM +0200, Namespace wrote:
>> It's been a while since Manu convinced Walter and Andrei to
>> introduce a virtual Keyword and to change the default from virtual
>> methods to final methods.
>> Anything new? Anybody working on that? I would love to see that
>> soon.
>
> This is going to break a lot of code. We'd need some kind of deprecation
> path. And even then, it may anger a lot of existing users.
>
>
> T

Even if it would break code, the introducing of the virtual keyword could be done without. The change of virtual by default -> final by default could be done after the introducing.

On 9/9/13 12:47 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 09:37:07PM +0200, Namespace wrote:
>> It's been a while since Manu convinced Walter and Andrei to
>> introduce a virtual Keyword and to change the default from virtual
>> methods to final methods.
>> Anything new? Anybody working on that? I would love to see that
>> soon.
>
> This is going to break a lot of code. We'd need some kind of deprecation
> path. And even then, it may anger a lot of existing users.
>
>
> T

After I've seen a pretty cool demo of clang-modernize (http://clang.llvm.org/extra/ModernizerUsage.html), I think the best way to attack this and similar problems is to add a class hierarchy analyzer: a command-line utility that is fed an entire project and adds as many 'final' as possible without changing semantics.

Time has come to migrate such functionality to tools. We keep on telling that "nobody uses the tools" but it seems experience contradicts that belief.


Andrei

On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:28:24PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 9/9/13 12:47 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 09:37:07PM +0200, Namespace wrote:
> >>It's been a while since Manu convinced Walter and Andrei to introduce a virtual Keyword and to change the default from virtual methods to final methods.  Anything new? Anybody working on that? I would love to see that soon.
> >
> >This is going to break a lot of code. We'd need some kind of deprecation path. And even then, it may anger a lot of existing users.
[...]
> After I've seen a pretty cool demo of clang-modernize (http://clang.llvm.org/extra/ModernizerUsage.html), I think the best way to attack this and similar problems is to add a class hierarchy analyzer: a command-line utility that is fed an entire project and adds as many 'final' as possible without changing semantics.
> 
> Time has come to migrate such functionality to tools. We keep on telling that "nobody uses the tools" but it seems experience contradicts that belief.
[...]

This would also be a good use case to motivate a reusable lexer/parser (e.g., std.d.lexer that has been suggested for review).


T

-- 
Some days you win; most days you lose.