Article View: comp.std.c++
Article #941Re: ~virtual (followup to ~const proposal 1.6)
From: Jim ADCOCK
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1991 23:27
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1991 23:27
16 lines
1077 bytes
1077 bytes
In article <20012@alice.att.com> bs@alice.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup) writes:
|I think you meant
|
| class Derived : Base {
| virtual double foo() const;
| };
|
|In that case cfront 2.0 warns:
|
|"", line 5: warning: Derived::foo() hides virtual Base::foo()
It seems to me a warning message represents a disagreement between
a language specification and a compiler specification. If a feature
ought to be in a language, it ought to be accepted by compilers
without warning. Warnings might be appropriate when a programmer depends
on implementation dependent features, but why otherwise?
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<71207@microsoft.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!jimadReferences:
<NGO.91Mar2014617@tammy.harvard.edu> <20012@alice.att.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!jimad From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: ~virtual (followup to ~const proposal 1.6) Message-ID: <71207@microsoft.UUCP> Date: 11 Mar 91 23:27:01 GMT References: <NGO.91Mar2014617@tammy.harvard.edu> <20012@alice.att.com> Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) Distribution: comp Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA Lines: 16