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 case and > have completely different semantics. They don't replace their base class > dtors. They're chained instead.
That's one way look at it. One can also argue that it's "something" for which some base implementation exists and that might need double-checking when the base disappears. It's also a hint when reading code that the base destructor's "virtual" actually has not been forgotten. > This is not 100% consensual, some people like to use it. > > But it's discouraged by the Cpp Core Guidelines [1] ; gcc's > -Wsuggest-override doesn't suggest it for dtors and neither does clang's > -Winconsistent-missing-override. > So clang-tidy is the one odd out. > > I'll update the coding conventions if nobody opposes. Please not. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
