[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Type: info
Title: + ::cppu::OPropertysetHelper::getTypes
Posted by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Affected: -
Effective from: CWS dba23a
*Summary*
--------
+ Sequence< Type > ::cppu::OPropertySetHelper::getTypes()
*Description*
-------------
The class OPropertySetHelper got a member getTypes, with the signature
as known from css.uno.XTypeProvider::getTypes. This eases
implementation of this method in derived classes, which formerly
needed to spell out all OPropertySetHelper-provided interfaces explicitly.
2 cents from the nitpicker:
1 The function is declared with an explicit
throws(css::uno::RuntimeException) specification. Do we want to make it
a rule to drop explicit specifications (where possible)?
(Sutter/Alexandrescu item 75.)
2 The function, as it is defined, could be static, or const. It is a
nice question whether the function should actually be declared static or
const, or whether that would unduly constrain it to evolve in the
future. (That is, whether the qualities that the function could be
static or const are implementation details.) Opinions?
-Stephan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
