On 2018-08-20 09:58, Kevin Funk wrote:
> IMO, it would also be nice to get a compiler warning/error if a
> base class' destructor is changed from virtual to non-virtual which may cause
> subtle behavioral changes such as memory leaks.
You mean something like -Wnon-virtual-dtor?
Granted, it's no
I’d agree with most comments. I find the override keyword on destructors
useful, and would like to keep it/encourage having it.
Cheers,
Lars
> On 20 Aug 2018, at 08:47, André Pönitz wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Sérgio Martins via Development
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Look
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Sérgio Martins via Development wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Looks like some 'override' keywords crept into a few destructors. This is
> probably because clang-tidy warns about it (and now QtCreator).
>
> IMO we should avoid it, as it's misleading. Dtors are a special
I have recently used Resharper C++ to automatically add override to destructor
declarations, on a very large application.
Conclusion: very instructive with reflexions such as: "ha ha! this base class
is virtual!"
IOW, override on dtor reveals information which can be useful to understand
code.
On 20/08/18 16:40, Eike Ziller wrote:
For example when removing QObject as a base class in a class hierarchy.
We regularly do these kind of changes in Qt Creator, when we find out that we
don’t need the baggage of QObject after all for something.
Do you have an example of such a change, that w
> On 20. Aug 2018, at 16:12, Ville Voutilainen
> wrote:
>
> On 20 August 2018 at 16:58, Kevin Funk via Development
> wrote:
>> On Monday, 20 August 2018 14:08:36 CEST Sérgio Martins via Development wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> Looks like some 'override' keywords crept into a few destructors.
On 20 August 2018 at 16:58, Kevin Funk via Development
wrote:
> On Monday, 20 August 2018 14:08:36 CEST Sérgio Martins via Development wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> Looks like some 'override' keywords crept into a few destructors. This
>> is probably because clang-tidy warns about it (and now QtCreator).
On Monday, 20 August 2018 14:08:36 CEST Sérgio Martins via Development wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Looks like some 'override' keywords crept into a few destructors. This
> is probably because clang-tidy warns about it (and now QtCreator).
>
> IMO we should avoid it, as it's misleading. Dtors are a specia
Hi,
Looks like some 'override' keywords crept into a few destructors. This
is probably because clang-tidy warns about it (and now QtCreator).
IMO we should avoid it, as it's misleading. Dtors are a special case and
have completely different semantics. They don't replace their base class
dto
