[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Some thoughts on kdelibs et al.
From:       Marc Mutz <Marc.Mutz () uni-bielefeld ! de>
Date:       2001-09-24 23:54:59
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 24 September 2001 10:20, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> On Monday 24 September 2001 02:51, John Gluck wrote:
<snip>
> > Still, it is much clearer to put "virtual" in rather than have a
> > user chase down a hierarchy tree to determine wether or not a
> > method is virtual.
> Noone disputes that.
<snip>

I do :-) I find the reasoning in TiC++ very convincing.
Leaving out the vitual keyword in derived classes makes it e.g. easy to 
see which virtual methods are added by that class. If you want to see 
which methods are virtual: KDoc and probably every UML tool can do that 
for you.

Marc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7r8fb3oWD+L2/6DgRAt/CAKDBWrKQQvi++/9YlZnJRYsvP6JU+gCggaC1
himbAjpcAdSmlOyOdEHxnR0=
=wEDU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]