On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> On 2013-09-04 12:18 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>
>> I like to put "virtual" on all methods that are virtual, even when it's
>> not
>> strictly necessary because the method overrides a virtual method of the
>> parent class.
>>
>> Other peopl
+1 for always using virtual (useful documentation without having to check the
super class), even with MOZ_OVERRIDE (just style).
Also +1 for /* static */ on method definitions (when they are declared static)
because that is useful information. /* virtual */ on definitions, I don't find
useful b
On 2013-09-04 12:18 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
I like to put "virtual" on all methods that are virtual, even when it's not
strictly necessary because the method overrides a virtual method of the
parent class.
Other people disagree, especially when the method has MOZ_OVERRIDE on it as
well.
On 09/04/2013 05:24 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
>> MOZ_OVERRIDE implies virtual, you get a compile error when you put
>> MOZ_OVERRIDE on a non virtual
> It does? That surprises me (it certainly wasn't the original intent of
> NS_OVERRIDE). There are certainly cases where we want to override non-
On 9/4/2013 12:45 AM, Chris Pearce wrote:
On 04-Sep-13 4:18 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
I like to put "virtual" on all methods that are virtual, even when
it's not
strictly necessary because the method overrides a virtual method of the
parent class.
Other people disagree, especially when the
FWIW, I like to write both virtual and MOZ_OVERRIDE.
I care a lot about always using MOZ_OVERRIDE when applicable. For virtual
(when MOZ_OVERRIDE is present) I suppose it is more of a matter of tastes.
Always explicitly writing both virtual and MOZ_OVERRIDE is a simpler rule
than marking virtual on
On Wednesday 2013-09-04 14:28 +1000, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Bobby Holley wrote:
> >+1. EIBTI.
>
> I agree, though MOZ_OVERRIDE does imply that the function is virtual
> already, so it may not be so necessary there.
I also support repeating virtual as good documentation.
The introduction of M
On 04-Sep-13 4:18 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
I like to put "virtual" on all methods that are virtual, even when it's not
strictly necessary because the method overrides a virtual method of the
parent class.
Other people disagree, especially when the method has MOZ_OVERRIDE on it as
well.
"v
Bobby Holley wrote:
+1. EIBTI.
I agree, though MOZ_OVERRIDE does imply that the function is virtual
already, so it may not be so necessary there.
There are many cases of member function declarations like:
/* virtual */ void theFunction();
I'm assuming this is done because of some compile
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> I like to put "virtual" on all methods that are virtual, even when it's not
> strictly necessary because the method overrides a virtual method of the
> parent class.
>
+1. EIBTI.
___
dev-platfo
I like to put "virtual" on all methods that are virtual, even when it's not
strictly necessary because the method overrides a virtual method of the
parent class.
Other people disagree, especially when the method has MOZ_OVERRIDE on it as
well.
What say you all?
Rob
--
Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n"
11 matches
Mail list logo
