On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 06:17:05AM -0600, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: > doubly public declaraions within classes...... Wayne and I have spent > years and a > fortune cleaning this up, and it still comes in at a pace that I can no > longer stomach. > THAT is the single biggest way to clean up the code base.
It's only a little stylish issue IMHO, but everyone has his priorities:D > - Always in derived method, prepend it with 'virtual'. That way it > is easy to see if something is intended to be that way ... and easy to > change the base-methods if someone changes the signature. This doesn't > help yet though with compilers checking your intentions. > > > DH> NO. The virtual-ness is inherited. That is sufficient. The OP seems to > not > understand, like you do, that the virtual ness is inherited, and affects all > calls to the > similarly named functions in the derived classes. (His concern about > const-ness coming > and going is valid however, and is the essence of the risk we are trying to > avoid.) I don't fully agree with that. Everybody knows that virtual is inherited (and it couldn't be in any other way, actually) but I find is way clear if it's made explicit, while reading a class without having to cross reference all the way to the parent which virtualized it. Otherwise a similar argument could be done for 'automatics are obviously seen as such since declared in the function body'. If we're going for legibility I'd say the virtual is good. > for old school compilers. That would allow us to start using the new > keyword. I remain > opposed to including the virtual in the derived classes also however. Can't comment on this, first time I've heard of these keywords... seems a tentative to javaize C++ to me :P -- Lorenzo Marcantonio Logos Srl _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
