alex added inline comments. INLINE COMMENTS
> sitter wrote in dictionaryrunner_config.cpp:29 > That's an implementation detail though, is it not? From the outside we > shouldn't make assumption about what the implementation does unless the > documentation says what we can assume. > Today the baseclass may be useless, in 10 years it may not be. > > Long-winded way of saying that I would leave the base class calls in. If > nothing else it's at least better form in terms of API contracts. That makes sense but one question: The doc says: `...However, if you for some reason reimplement it and also are using KConfigXT, you must call this function`, does this mean we can assume that the base class is not needed? PS: In this case it is not very relevant but I would like to understand concept for future patches 😃. REPOSITORY R114 Plasma Addons REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D28192 To: alex, broulik, ngraham, sitter, mlaurent Cc: plasma-devel, Orage, LeGast00n, The-Feren-OS-Dev, cblack, jraleigh, zachus, fbampaloukas, GB_2, ragreen, ZrenBot, ngraham, himcesjf, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, ahiemstra, mart
