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 <apoen...@t-online.de> wrote: > > 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 > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development