[class.abstract] Missing change of note for inherited member functions in P1787R6 #6194
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
frederick-vs-ja
force-pushed
the
no-longer-inherited
branch
from
8da3673
to
6e8ccda
Compare
|
@opensdh Could you please take a look? |
|
I think that the broader changes in cplusplus/CWG#267 are what we want: immediately after the note is a plain use of "has" that is wrong in this conception of inheritance. Fixing that would finish making the note trivial, so we should remove it as part of that change; until then, I suspect the note is helpful in counterbalancing the following mistake. |
|
OK, thanks, let's leave this to that CWG issue! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Before P1787R6, we said members other than constructors could be inherited from a base class. With the changed in #[class.derived] of P1787R6, inherited members are restricted to constructors. As a result, Note 2 in [class.abstract] is incorrect now.
I think we can just say a pure virtual function is declared in a base class. The "see below" part doesn't seem helpful, and I guess it should be removed. Another choice might be removing the whole note since it seems slightly redundant.
Related to cplusplus/CWG#267, but I don't see the need of a core issue.