🚀 go-pugleaf

That way a user will write a definition for the body of a derived
class virtual function without declaring it in the derived class
definition.  The derived class declaration element for the virtual
function is then inherited from an ancestral base class and the
inherited declaration and explicit definition MUST MATCH or a compile
time error occurs.

This would be substantially better than the current situation in which
given a mistaken difference between the intended base class virtual
function calling sequence and the actual derived class calling
sequence you just end up with a new virtual function at the level of
the derived class with no warning whatever about potential
misbehavior.

This is problem with a substantial probability of occurance since I
have seen this situation occur independently to two different
InterViews users.

This approach will save people who use public libraries from getting
shafted when a minor change happens in the calling syntax of some
virtual during a library update.

This approach will save people who misdefine the virtual definition in
a minor way.

This approach will be backward compatible, since redeclaration of the
virtual function in the derived class definition will have no effect.

Web
--
Dr. Webster Dove				Dr. Webster Dove
Experimental Computing Systems ('X')		Lockheed Sanders Inc.  
Signal Processing Center of Technology		144 Daniel Webster Hwy.
Lockheed Sanders Inc.				Merrimack, NH.  03054  
						
email: 
	(usenet)	...!uunet!rocket!dove
	(or internet)	<rocket!dove@uunet.uu.net>