220 13298 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: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 10:06:15 +0300 Lines: 46 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> <4be2b4b5-7893-4408-9073-add2661ee58e@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 1411974384 15843 80.91.229.3 (29 Sep 2014 07:06:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 07:06:24 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5JHI7A7ALRBZ4JUSQQKGQEHBGQG6I@isocpp.org Mon Sep 29 09:06:17 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-qc0-f197.google.com ([209.85.216.197]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XYV2H-0007Sx-7i for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 09:06:17 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-qc0-f197.google.com with SMTP id w7sf7399697qcr.0 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 00:06:16 -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=SlZSp0UG9Vxv0kIrfsq8N3qxBz1/KdejYAdtXsd8cD0=; b=FwcjFhvnODaG0Xb6pyqofjR0DAjjWfIVhuaSLatl4n8iLZN524+x79dYu497N3ko75 PjLaqNMLZyGdRVPB3px8azdFzBr6pUQmf7XeVQ0tkuHuJzksr/ABXZIX6Hp9KQlbKAO5 dr8FqHn3kNqYFJD4El/+e80XyXuiF8H0su1NXaj0QpqPUio2gT7T33tdvyBFCiYzf6lw bPMvUqK87OqDY6ocChLHJDTr5gEUlCLE+jaYzug1WSQFk8mCKXI8UKgO7GrQlDoz/5dT rF53MROnIm39kvcYcy9A6oKYl5e0p7AMT1oti982Ub81W23RGZ2XVlo7ft/CXKt/8E0J UYUw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmREQJCdoiC3vhS68Jueo15DCdAA7waB0L5fUpDe82vwckVjyWJ74imRajbOo37mPZYGPHZ X-Received: by 10.224.171.66 with SMTP id g2mr32273752qaz.0.1411974376286; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 00:06:16 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.50.3.65 with SMTP id a1ls1976954iga.26.gmail; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 00:06:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.43.61.4 with SMTP id wu4mr18438icb.77.1411974375565; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 00:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-ie0-x22e.google.com (mail-ie0-x22e.google.com [2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k5si746972icn.7.2014.09.29.00.06.15 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Sep 2014 00:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22e; Original-Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id tr6so835168ieb.19 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 00:06:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.122.5 with SMTP id lo5mr32790841igb.25.1411974375344; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 00:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.42.44.8 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 00:06:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4be2b4b5-7893-4408-9073-add2661ee58e@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:c03::22e 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:13298 Archived-At: On 29 September 2014 04:54, wrote: > It would seem this example, while real, is just some c++11 compatibility > code as I suspected. > > I have yet to see anything anywhere so far that undermines the basic > principle that putting override and virtual on the same function is > redundant and shouldn't be encouraged unless there is good reason. > > If that assertion is true, at a minimum, we can improve the status quo by > putting something in the isocpp faq that states that, can we not? > > To me it would seem a pretty clean guideline that would resolve the > confusion that exists that both are necessary. Well, first of all, there's already common confusion that virtual is necessary for overrides, regardless of whether the override keyword exists or not. So this guideline of not using both of them doesn't entirely resolve all the confusion in the world. > Your example is simply "a good reason", but it's still just compatibility > code, not something that would undermine the rule I'm trying to establish. > I also think having a switch to diagnose this redundancy in code would be > useful. > > In theory at least, we'd want to get rid of such compatibility code > eventually. The code, while verbose and redundant, is completely harmless. There's no need to get rid of it. As a bad analogy, I don't see people wanting to get rid of 'unsigned int' because 'unsigned' will do. > There appears to be no reason to want both override and virtual on the same > function beyond compatibility reasons, right? Some people love writing verbose code. Some people want to write the virtual as a prefix for any virtual function, overridden or not. -- --- 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/. .