I very much agree with Andre and Jedrzej. I don't see little value added here, and I actually even see quite a few useful cases for public inheritance, like QPolygon.
So no, I'm against making value classes final. Cheers, Lars On 3/7/12 1:03 PM, "ext Jedrzej Nowacki" <jedrzej.nowa...@nokia.com> wrote: >On Wednesday 7. March 2012 12.37.51 ext Marc Mutz wrote: >> On Wednesday March 7 2012, andre.poen...@nokia.com wrote: >> > Marc Mutz wote: >> > > I've uploaded a patch series that makes most of the value classes in >> > > QtCore final in the C++11 sense (ie. under a C++11 compiler, these >>can >> > > no longer be inherited from). >> > >> > I disagree with the idea of making Qt core classes non-inheritable. >> > >> > While inheritance from "value" classes is rarely needed, it _is_ >>useful >> > at times. Most notably, private inheritance is even "pretty safe". >> > >> > There is no need to artificially deprive us of useful tools. >> >> Name one instance where (non-public, since public isn't safe) >>inheritance >> is useful and not just laziness on the part of the inheriter :) >> >> Thanks, >> Marc > >What are you trying to solve? Using raw pointers may be unsafe but it >doesn't mean that the functionality should be removed from C++. I agree >with Andre blocking inheritance is really radical move, that doesn't buy >us much apart of SC problems. > >Cheers, > Jędrek >_______________________________________________ Development mailing list >Development@qt-project.org >http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
