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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Some thoughts on kdelibs et al.
From:       John Gluck <jgluckca () home ! com>
Date:       2001-09-25 21:40:15
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi

>
> > > 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 ?
> >
>
> That's not the point. The point is that it _adds_ information, while
> stubbornly repeating the virtual keyword in each derived class doesn't.

I disagree, leaving out the virtual keyword removes information and you then need
to hunt it down all the way to he base class.

>
> Worse, you could mistakenly add it to a non-virtual function (not sure
> if the compiler would complain <testing> no, it doesn't).
>

That implies a certain amount of carelessness. I did try that once to see if it
was possible to do.
The program crashed.

>
> You should let the compiler do the housekeeping.

What housekeeping are you refering to. We wre discussing the virtual keyword as a
documentation issue.

>
>
> And one last argument: If Bjarne himself doesn't repeat the virtual
> keyword... ;-)
>

So what who made him God?? That argument is like "everybody knows that".

John


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

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