On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 04:47:43PM +0100, José Matos wrote: > On Friday 04 May 2007 16:39:32 Michael Gerz wrote: > > Do we really have to repeat the term "virtual" in all subclasses? > > No, we don't but it is usual to do it to warn the developer that the method > is virtual. It is good practice to document the function status although it > is not required by the language.
The counterargument that's easier to grep for the base implementation if there's no 'virtual' on the derived classes and there is less line noise this way. I personally think pros and cons are balanced on this issue. Andre'
