Should a derived class redefine (“override”) a member function that is non-virtual in a base class?
FAQ: You can do that, but you shouldn’t. Experienced programmers sometimes do that for various reasons. Remember that the user-visible effects of both versions of the functions must be identical. FQA: Here’s a trade secret: not so experienced programmers do that, too. For the umpteen time: why does this compile? This particular case doesn’t seem to be an unintended side effect; it’s a feature with elaborate design (there’s all this nonsense with using names from the base class shadowed by functions with the same name, etc.). The redefinition-looking-like-an-override is overloading on steroids: it’s even less useful and has even higher obfuscation potential. And it’s only one of the zillions of various name binding rules – the bits of C++ making it impossible to decipher what code is actually called by f(x).
