From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010BEBB81 for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:56:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k1PBuHZU031536 for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:56:17 +0100 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA18831 for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:56:17 +0100 (MET) Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de (einhorn.in-berlin.de [192.109.42.8]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k1PBuG3C031533 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:56:16 +0100 X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de X-Envelope-To: Received: from first.in-berlin.de (e178033193.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.33.193]) (authenticated bits=0) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-4) with ESMTP id k1PBuF6r022840 for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:56:15 +0100 Received: by first.in-berlin.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id CE8632216FB; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:55:31 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:55:31 +0100 From: Oliver Bandel To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] multiple inheritance, bug or feature ? Message-ID: <20060225115531.GB460@first.in-berlin.de> References: <440038EC.5060302@yahoo.fr> <20060225.204422.95892422.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060225.204422.95892422.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 440045E1.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 440045E0.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; oliver:01 bandel:01 oliver:01 in-berlin:01 caml-list:01 bug:01 overriding:01 overriding:01 intentional:01 compiler:01 wrote:01 imho:01 jacques:01 overridden:02 warnings:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 08:44:22PM +0900, Jacques Garrigue wrote: [...] > I'm also wondering whether this is really necessary to have a warning > for overriding through inheritance. If overriding was intentional, then > the warning is pointless. Do you see situations where one could end up > doing this unintentionally? Every warning that a compiler can throw makes sense for someone who might need this. Is this warning possible to turn off? Then you could do it. But I prefer as default have more warnings, not less. Well, OO should help to have less copy&pasted code, but some things might be done in this way. A warning on the overridden methods IMHO make sense. Ciao, Oliver