Re: Disallowing Pre-Defined Operations

[Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com>]

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:
[...]
> The abstract declaration is quite direct and consistent,
> entirely intuitive, since it is consistent with the way
> abstract works, and less typing than your horrible pragma.

I'm not convinced of that.  RM95-3.9.3(1) says:

    An abstract subprogram is a subprogram that has no body, but is
    intended to be overridden at some point when inherited.

What we're talking about here is a subprogram that is *not* intended
to be overridden.  The usage is guaranteed to work, but judging from
the wording in the RM I don't believe it's consistent with the
original intent.  (I'm not saying I have a better idea.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center           <*>  <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Welcome to the last year of the 20th century.