On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 11:42 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 11:25 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
> > On the other hand; I'd (personally) prefer to use some defines to
> > create the 'override' and 'final' keywords (as they will be in future).
> > Defining them to 'virtual' or even empty would do, if they are not
> > present in the compiler. cf. glib's provision of a stock 'inline'.
...
> One nitpick: While it would keep the code surely more readable, it
> would make it less standard. For one, override and final are
> technically not keywords in C++11, so a correct program that used them
> as identifiers would be broken if we defined them to be empty (for a
> compiler not yet supporting them).
Sure - but I suspect the instance count of that is really low in our
nFinal aOverride world; a quick:
git grep final | grep \.[ch]xx
git grep override | grep \.[ch]xx
Shows almost no problems here.
> For another, if override and final /were/ keywords, defining them in
> any way would result in undefined behaviour.
Sure - which is why we'd do that for old compiler versions only; that
is what glib does for 'inline' - quite successfully. The main downside
to this might be the odd error messages when someone does:
bool final = false;
;-) but - apparently people don't do that. Either way, I know which I
prefer:
final bool methodFoo();
virtual char methodBaz();
override int methodBaa();
vs.
SAL_FINAL bool methodFoo()
virtual char methodBaz();
SAL_OVERRIDE int methodBaa()
But, since there is (as yet) no patch, it's hardly worth discussing.
;-)
Michael.
--
michael.me...@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
