Code review comment for lp:~saviq/unity-api/add-shell-notifications-api
Revision history for this message
| Michał Sawicz (saviq) wrote | # |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
35a32c5
(Get the code!)
W dniu 16.05.2013 10:54, Michi Henning pisze:
> Looks like it's fine now. Not sure why I saw this error even after I added builddir/test to cppcheck. Never mind. If this pops up again, we can deal with it separately.
That's because I've added cppcheck-suppress for it...
> For self-documentation purposes and clarity, it makes sense to make all the constructors protected, even if there are pure virtual methods elsewhere in the class.
Yup, that's what I thought. Will do.
> No. Destructors should to remain public. There really is no point making the destructor in a base class protected. It would prevent stack allocation of the class (if it were not abstract). But, seeing the class is abstract already, there is no point in a protected destructor.
No no, I meant whether we should make them pure virtual - they're not,
currently.
--
Michał Sawicz <email address hidden>
Canonical Services Ltd.