I'd like to see D care more about this, method hiding:


class Foo {
    string name = "c1";
    static void foo() {}
}
class Bar : Foo {
    string name = "c2";
    static void foo() {} // silent method hiding
}
void main() {}


In such situations I'd like D to require the use of a "new" keyword as C# does (as with 'override', it first becomes a warning):


class Foo {
    string name = "c1";
    static void foo() {}
}
class Bar : Foo {
    string name = "c2";
    static new void foo() {} // method hiding is now visible
}
void main() {}


The point here is to make the purpose and meaning of the code more explicit.

---------------------

See also an answer by Jesse Phillips:
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=154448

>> Override usage is going to be (hopefully soon) compulsory in D
>> (currently you need -w to see an error). So that code without
>> both static and override is going to be refused :-)
>
> I guess the question I was getting at, currently there is no way
> to "hide" a non-static member function like you would do in C#
> with 'new.' Is that intended once 'override' is required? and if
> not why have 'new' usable for static methods?