> On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:13 PM, Christian Kandeler > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 03/09/2015 12:02 PM, Daniel Teske wrote: >> If anyone wants to propose a coding style, please come forward. > > For the "override" keyword, the following two rules seem to make sense: > 1) It is recommended [Strongly recommended? Required?] to use the > "override" keyword when overriding virtual functions.
> [Do we still need > an exception for destructors?] As far as I know that was only a restriction in MSVC2010 which we would drop anyhow. > 2) Make sure derived classes are consistent in their use of the > keyword, i.e. don't have overridden functions with and without the > keyword in the same class. > > Now, how to deal with "legacy code"? > Approach 1: Add overrides in a dedicated patch. Not manually, of course, > but using clang-modernize. > Approach 2: Adapt classes when we add a new overriding function. This > would introduce unrelated changes to patches. > Approach 3: Leave existing classes alone. This seems wrong and is only > listed here for completeness. > Opinions? > > > Christian > > _______________________________________________ > Qt-creator mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator -- Eike Ziller, Senior Software Engineer - The Qt Company GmbH The Qt Company GmbH, Rudower Chaussee 13, D-12489 Berlin Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi, Juha Varelius, Tuula Haataja Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 144331 B _______________________________________________ Qt-creator mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
