This isn't actually possible.  What I would suggest is the compiler failing to compile your class instead, because you can't disable a base function.

If for example, you have a function like this:

bool foo(Object o1, Object o2) {...}

Then would it be safe to assume that you could pass both a and b to foo?  If so, then isn't it possible for foo to call o1 == o2?  And how could the compiler possibly statically disable this?

I'm going to mark it as invalid, and if you think you'd rather have the behavior where @disable doesn't compile on overridden functions, then you can reopen with that description.

(In reply to comment #1)
> This isn't actually possible.  What I would suggest is the compiler failing to
> compile your class instead, because you can't disable a base function.

I agree. Where possible a good compiler has to statically disallow impossible code :-)

Added a note to bug 3934

class A {
   void hello() {
   }
}
class B : A {
   @disable override void hello() {
   }
}

void main() {
   auto a = new A();
   A b = new B();

   b.hello();
}

The compiler should not compile the class saying something to the effect of:
Can not disable method hello in base class A from B.
Or another suggestion "Cannot @disable overriding function hello in B"

Note that I think the code below should still compile:

class A {
   @disable void hello() {
   }
}
class B : A {
   override void hello() {
   }
}

void main() {
   auto a = new A();
   B b = new B();

   b.hello();
}

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 6760 ***