Re: Public comment on the CD

Article View: comp.std.c++

Article #1570

#1570

From: John Hickin
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 17:55

17 lines
1457 bytes

|> At one point in time in the history of C++, the virtual specifier was
|> required in the declaration of an overriding function in a derived class
|> even when the base class function being overridden was already declared
|> virtual. 

When was this the case?  I have been using different versions of cfront since
1985 and never noticed that type of behavior.

To digress a bit, have a look at the various C++ coding guidelines that have
sprouted all around.  They almost universally recommend the explicit use of the
virtual keyword in all derived class function declarations.  If your point is
correct (and I am willing to admit that I could be wrong) then the guideline
writers don't seem to regard the current behavior as an *enhancement*.

-- 
John Hickin      Bell-Northern Research, Montreal, Quebec
(514) 765-7924   hickin@bnr.ca

Technical Details

Message-ID: <3vr2i5$qch@bmtlh10.bnr.ca>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!bmtlh10.bnr.ca!news

References: <3v0pam$1lv@jabba.lehman.com> <3ver7t$61k@f111.iassf.easams.com.au> <3vqvsa$bhq@jabba.lehman.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!bmtlh10.bnr.ca!news
From: John Hickin <hickin@bnr.ca>
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Public comment on the CD
Date: 3 Aug 1995 17:55:17 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Message-ID: <3vr2i5$qch@bmtlh10.bnr.ca>
References: <3v0pam$1lv@jabba.lehman.com> <3ver7t$61k@f111.iassf.easams.com.au> <3vqvsa$bhq@jabba.lehman.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bmtlh520.bnr.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1 (X11; I; HP-UX A.09.01 9000/715)
To: ajay@lehman.com
X-URL: news:3vqvsa$bhq@jabba.lehman.com

Reply to Parent Message