Re: overriding in private part

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com> writes:

> I shouldn't have said "solve".  It *partially* solves the problem, in
> that if the programmers use "overriding" and "not overriding"
> consistently on everything, it won't let you write a program that has
> an unexpected result of the sort Maxim ran into.

I think you should say "overriding" wherever it's legal,
but never say "not overriding".  And use a compiler that
warns on missing "overriding" -- such as a recent GNAT
with the -gnatyO switch.

I agree that in the OP's example, P2 should be overriding -- this is a
language design flaw.  But at least you won't get in trouble at
run time, if you follow the above convention.

- Bob