On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:43:55AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > | Well, I don't like > | > | - string screenLabel() const; > | + virtual string const screenLabel() const; > | > | but I know Lars likes it. So maybe the point is already mood. > > I am not sure what part of it you think I like....
I thought both. I certainly remember you proposing the 'const'. If I am wrong at the 'virtual' part (actually that's the one that annoys me more as this is (a) longer and (b) non-grep-able...) I would be glad to remove them at once. > I am ambivalent about the 'virtual', but leans towards this being > mentioned in a comment instead. Good. > (I think doxygen does that automatically? That would also solve your > "lookup-base-func" problem.) Don't know. > As to the 'const': Yes I like that. Couple of reasons: a. makes it > impossible to do strange/unsafe things with the temporary returned. As you can only (1) copy it or (2) call non-const member function or (3) call const member funcions, the only difference is (2). And that's too small a chance to rectify the extra verbosity IMO. > b. makes it more similar to a return type "string const &", and in > combination with a. makes a transition to this type later (if wanted) > easier. Hardly an argument, is it? [But if you let me have my will with regard to 'virtual' I'll immediately stop quarrelling about the 'const' ;-)] Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
