Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Issue 3836 - [TDPL] obligatory override attribute #136

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 9, 2011
Merged

Issue 3836 - [TDPL] obligatory override attribute #136

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 9, 2011

Conversation

yebblies
Copy link
Member

Turn overrides without the override keyword into an error.
Update tests to use override.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3836

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jun 17, 2011

I never knew why this would be a warning in the first place. Nice to see DMD getting up to speed with TDPL.

@yebblies
Issue 3836 - [TDPL] obligatory override attribute
167ad23 
As it is described in TDPL, so it shall be.
Turn overrides without the override keyword into an error.
Update tests to use override.
braddr pushed a commit to braddr/dmd that referenced this pull request Sep 15, 2011
@jmdavis
Merge pull request dlang#136 from dawgfoto/FixupPull105
d90c486 
Fixup pull 105 (broken relative dirEntries)

This should get rid of a regression with regards to dirEntries and relative paths.
@WalterBright
Copy link
Member

The reason this is marked as a warning is to not break existing code without providing a long transition period for users. The next step will be to make it deprecated, and then an error.

I'll merge all the test case patches, but not the func.c change.

WalterBright added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 9, 2011
@WalterBright
Merge pull request #136 from yebblies/issue3836
24c48a8 
Issue 3836 - [TDPL] obligatory override attribute
@WalterBright WalterBright merged commit 24c48a8 into dlang:master Oct 9, 2011
@braddr
Copy link
Member

braddr commented Oct 9, 2011

It's been years. .it's time to take the next step on this one, unless
it's never going to happen.

On Sunday, October 09, 2011 11:17:01 AM, Walter Bright wrote:

The reason this is marked as a warning is to not break existing code without providing a long transition period for users. The next step will be to make it deprecated, and then an error.

I'll merge all the test case patches, but not the func.c change.

@yebblies
Copy link
Member Author

The next step will be to make it deprecated, and then an error.

Ok, I'll make a new patch with a deprecated error instead, which can be merged when we're ready.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@yebblies @WalterBright @braddr