[DGD] Re: Couple DGD questions

[Felix A. Croes]

Stephen Schmidt <schmidsj at union.edu> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Jun 1998, Felix A. Croes wrote:
> > To be yet more precise: <any> calls made to static
> > functions in the auto object can never be redirected to a new function
> > by masking the static function, no matter from where the calls are
> > made.  In C++ terminology, static functions in the auto object are
> > not "virtual".
>  
> To put this in language "for the rest of us" :)  this means that
> in the auto object, "static nomask" is redundant?

Not exactly.  I think you are confused about the meaning of "nomask":
a static function in the auto object <can> be masked, it just doesn't have
any effect on existing calls to that function.  Declaring it to be nomask
would make masking it impossible: attempting to do so would result in a
compile-time error.

Dworkin