The original node made me think of "I need a class that can't be used on Tuesdays. I could just check localtime in new(), but somebody could intentionally set their computer's clock wrong..."
I suppose there could be a class that the author knows would break if subclassed.
If that were the case, then I would put the checking at/around the point that I thought would break if it was subclassed. I wouldn't go the indirect route and try to prevent all forms of subclassing. And this would also avoid the obvious and wise questioning of "why do you want to make subclassing fatal?". I would also question a conclusion so broad as "this will break if subclassed". I expect such would more correctly be stated as "this will likely break if subclassed in the obvious way".
But that is based on a lot of speculation. It would be nice to know why such a bizarre (IMHO) requirement was formulated.
- tye
In reply to Re^3: A class that cannot be subclassed. (direct)
by tye
in thread A class that cannot be subclassed.
by kyle
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |