On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 06/24/2015 02:23 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> >> Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> writes: >>> >>> So I'm holding off on approving this one pending further discussion of >>> the use of multiple inheritance for nofree_ptr_hash. >> >> >> I thought that might be controversial. :-) My two main defences are: >> >> 1) This is multiple inheritance of traits classes, which all just have >> static member functions, rather than multiple inheritance of data- >> carrying classes. It's really just a union of two separate groups >> of functions. > > As I was thinking about this during review I almost convinced myself that > multiple inheritance from traits classes ought to be acceptable. > > As you state, they don't carry data and we're just getting a union of their > functions. One could probably even argue that traits classes by their > nature are designed to be composed with other traits and classes. > > I'm (obviously) not as well versed in this stuff as I ought to be, hence my > conservatism. It'd be real helpful if folks with more real world experience > in this space could chime in on the pros/cons if this approach. > > If we do go forward, ISTM updating our coding conventions to codify this > exception to the "avoid MI" would be wise. And my inclination is to go > forward, but let's give other folks a chance to chime in.
Yes, I think this is ok. Richard. > > Jeff
