Opt-in when overriding a propery or method

[Llorx]

This, more than a proposal, is just a question to see what do you think on this, and maybe create a proposal just in case...

We have 2 classes, A and B extending A.

Now B can override methods and properties from A without noticing, leading to a problem if the override was by accident.

What if when you override, you have to opt-in by adding a decorator? So you will know that you are overriding something and act accordingly (Add the decorator to really override or change the property/method name).

There's already this: #8306 but I think that mine is a bit different.

[jods4]

I think this might be #2000?

[Llorx]

Yes but no. Is not opt-in : "it is not an error to omit the override keyword from an overridden method."

[jods4]

There was a lot of discussions about that.
The outcome from TS team seems to be that there might be a switch to make override mandatory.
From that comment

New commandline switch --noImplicitOverride (feel free bikeshed the name here) makes override mandatory for things that are overrides

[mhegazy]

I believe this request is covered by #2000 as @jods4 mentioned.

[Llorx]

This comment is not opt-in. Forces a method with override tag to be overriden if extended, or return error.

And the final keyword prevents the method from being overriden.

I'm talking about something mid-way. Preventing the method from being overriden (like final), but allowing it if you add an special operator.

By the way, seeing the thread topic, I guess that is more appropriate to post there.

PD: And found the only one post telling the same as me: #2000 (comment). Closing this.