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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Some thoughts on kdelibs et al.
From:       Guillaume Laurent <glaurent () telegraph-road ! org>
Date:       2001-09-25 8:24:14
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tuesday 25 September 2001 01:54, Marc Mutz wrote:

> > > 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.

TiC++ ?

> Leaving out the vitual keyword in derived classes makes it e.g. easy to
> see which virtual methods are added by that class.

And how often do you need this kind of information ?

> If you want to see
> which methods are virtual: KDoc and probably every UML tool can do that
> for you.

In general, I don't think you want to rely on tools more sophisticated than a 
text editor to obtain this kind of information (which on the other hand you 
need pretty often).

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

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