220 13273 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ville Voutilainen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Tighten rules for virtual override keyword combination Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 23:47:20 +0300 Lines: 24 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <19267205-7e26-4c12-b9b4-f26ab2f99eb7@isocpp.org> <803262EF-88B4-40B0-AC9B-7C7356CDE56A@gmail.com> <54274B57.6040007@gmail.com> <542801A1.5040503@gmail.com> <86dea2ad-93c2-4cf1-9afc-99256c580a8d@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1411937249 21581 80.91.229.3 (28 Sep 2014 20:47:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 20:47:29 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5JHI7A7ALRBWHHUGQQKGQE4CKLA4A@isocpp.org Sun Sep 28 22:47:24 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ob0-f197.google.com ([209.85.214.197]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XYLNK-0001Rv-CJ for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 22:47:22 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f197.google.com with SMTP id wo20sf75989330obc.8 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 13:47:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=t3DvC5HXpXCGzMDNEWKTEM3aEY70mNP3tgAZqCJWEao=; b=cO+QU4w82CMeL4u768aMymnJWekn5ES6uZA+9xGZD6lm8v4CBk1n3Y0eQLTO7TI8TJ vAwCNQ5T0nL7XP39ehwT+zgzZCdRNlpZTOmEeIaGBwSnaG2gu8riik7/+yyV+k0SjFaa pCP9xYROio9IPz5P4ksLgKhAKjBN+FWYrvzhlyJqmMq7Jo9WKzr3mzh35HHDmIqi55j7 aKrY6Cz8/Tp/Juk06n0GfbtAMSvu/5sfm68PxeANYkCeq3wIt/XE9sIKaeWix4c8tPn6 zjUXWYJ1BLbJaktniiQ5dkzJ5TU3PniuSEZT7NbmlZdNwdGjYdfYe4QujknAJN5gUt6z kqJg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkY3T8z6636ZMtleSdJvC0KVvywvDHTTtNDqGn0v/uVMJM3pUMRUaJ7Q1+U+O8yIvpjz907 X-Received: by 10.50.83.106 with SMTP id p10mr5869221igy.4.1411937241238; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 13:47:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.50.30.163 with SMTP id t3ls89989igh.23.gmail; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 13:47:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.138.194 with SMTP id qs2mr30579890igb.4.1411937240643; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 13:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-ig0-x22d.google.com (mail-ig0-x22d.google.com [2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22d]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u6si13166400ico.60.2014.09.28.13.47.20 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 28 Sep 2014 13:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22d; Original-Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id uq10so1076524igb.6 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 13:47:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.43.193 with SMTP id y1mr47684302igl.32.1411937240445; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 13:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.42.44.8 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 13:47:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <86dea2ad-93c2-4cf1-9afc-99256c580a8d@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: ville.voutilainen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22d as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ville.voutilainen@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:13273 Archived-At: On 28 September 2014 23:16, wrote: > Would you mind elaborating on the "behind macros" comment for me please. I > think you are objecting to the proposal that "if virtual and override appear > on the same function it should be a warning", I'm trying to make sure I > fully understand your reasons. Here's a very practical example: https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/peter-hs-qtbase/commit/850353527f78ae6e192ba5165bde33eae2a48451 The virtual function overrides are marked virtual, and if c++11 is enabled, Q_DECL_OVERRIDE marks them override as well. So, requiring that to be diagnosed would break existing code. Potentially lots of existing code. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. .