On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 02:47:56PM -0800, Peter Kasting wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:31 PM, James Robinson <jam...@google.com> wrote: > > What's the benefit of omitting the virtual destructor? > > > > I'm not trying to say it has massive benefits. I'm trying to make concrete > the rather abstract statement that we have patterns right now where objects > don't specify destructors. > > If you want me to argue for it, then I would probably say that it's a little > simpler and clearer without a destructor, and for someone used to reading > our code it's a tipoff that this is an instance of the "interface" class > pattern. If I were to add a destructor, I'd declare one in private as > opposed to adding a virtual one, again just to emphasize that this is an > interface as opposed to a parent of more specialized children. Not a very > important set of reasons. > > If you feel violently, write the patch. I won't stop you.
Ahem? http://codereview.chromium.org/201100/show -- Jacob -- Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
