Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!image.soe.clarkson.edu!news From: cline@cheetah.ece.clarkson.edu (Marshall Cline) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: renaming Message-ID: Date: 2 Jun 90 05:13:17 GMT References: <156@logo.procase.UUCP> Sender: news@sun.soe.clarkson.edu Reply-To: cline@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Marshall Cline) Organization: (I don't speak for the) ECE Dept, Clarkson Univ, Potsdam, NY Lines: 27 In-reply-to: roger@procase.UUCP's message of 1 Jun 90 07:03:30 GMT In article <156@logo.procase.UUCP> roger@procase.UUCP (Roger H. Scott) writes: > It seems like a reasonable generalization of the syntax (and semantics?) of > pure virtual functions would be to allow: > struct Thing1 : public AbstractThing, public Thing1Implementation { > redefine void f() = do_that_there_f_stuff; > }; Hmmmm. But what does this do to the conformance requirement of subtypes? You want to change the language, the only benefit of this new language feature being to avoid at most one virtual function call, and the cost of the feature being that publically derived subclasses will no longer will have the same public interface. Hmmmm. I know that subtype conformance isn't important to everyone, but please don't break it for those of us who like to say `is-a'! Marshall Cline -- ============================================================================== Marshall Cline / Asst.Prof / ECE Dept / Clarkson Univ / Potsdam, NY 13676 cline@sun.soe.clarkson.edu / Bitnet:BH0W@CLUTX / uunet!clutx.clarkson.edu!bh0w Voice: 315-268-3868 / FAX: 315-268-7600 Career search in progress; ECE faculty; research oriented; will send vita. ==============================================================================