D.gnu - Interfaces versus unimplemented virtual functions
- Giles Constant (14/14) Jun 28 2004 Hiya,
- Andy Friesen (9/28) Jun 28 2004 What you're looking for is the abstract keyword:
- Ilya Minkov (2/28) Jun 28 2004
Hiya, I'm a little bit confused as to how to implement something. In C++, I would write this: class Base { int x; virtual void function() = 0; } ie, it's a base class, which has an int, and a function which must be implemented by any subclasses. In D, there doesn't appear to be an equivalent to the "= 0" syntax, and interfaces won't let me have integers! What's the equivalent style? Thanks! Giles
Jun 28 2004
Giles Constant wrote:Hiya, I'm a little bit confused as to how to implement something. In C++, I would write this: class Base { int x; virtual void function() = 0; } ie, it's a base class, which has an int, and a function which must be implemented by any subclasses. In D, there doesn't appear to be an equivalent to the "= 0" syntax, and interfaces won't let me have integers! What's the equivalent style? Thanks!What you're looking for is the abstract keyword: class Base { int x; abstract void function(); } (by the way, this is kind of an odd place to post this. D.gnu is mainly about GCC-related issues as opposed to the D language itself) -- andy
Jun 28 2004
abstract class Base { int x; virtual void function(); }-eye Giles Constant schrieb:Hiya, I'm a little bit confused as to how to implement something. In C++, I would write this: class Base { int x; virtual void function() = 0; } ie, it's a base class, which has an int, and a function which must be implemented by any subclasses. In D, there doesn't appear to be an equivalent to the "= 0" syntax, and interfaces won't let me have integers! What's the equivalent style? Thanks! Giles
Jun 28 2004