On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 03:06:21PM -0800, James Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Jacob Mandelson <ja...@mandelson.org>wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 02:55:17PM -0800, Peter Kasting wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Jacob Mandelson <ja...@mandelson.org
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://codereview.chromium.org/201100/show
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, that caused a large subsequent discussion at which it seemed like it
> > > was determined that this was fine. I was surprised to hear this issue
> > come
> > > up again because I'd assumed you'd already checked in your fixes.
> >
> > I had the impression that at the end of the discussion you were still
> > against. Can you LG 201100 and 200106 ?
> >
>
> They have whitespace errors which need resolving. I'd also favor just going
> with virtual d'tors rather than protected non-virtual ones. Protected
> virtual if you want to enforce that the object is never deleted via a ptr to
> the base class.
Yes, I'll fix the whitespace to style.
I don't feel strongly about which way the dtors go, protected or virtual,
but chose to prefer protected because the intent was that the class not
be derived-destructed and that expressed that intent.
-- Jacob
--
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
