Skip to content

STL: Should we avoid repeating virtual for override functions? #303

@StephanTLavavej

Description

@StephanTLavavej

Currently, we follow a convention of saying both virtual and override on derived implementations. One of many examples:

STL/stl/inc/functional

Lines 861 to 863 in 58bb49d

virtual _Rx _Do_call(_Types&&... _Args) override { // call wrapped function
return _Invoker_ret<_Rx>::_Call(_Mypair._Myval2, _STD forward<_Types>(_Args)...);
}

We started doing this when override was new and we weren't familiar with reading it. Now that we are, should we avoid this redundancy? The advantage to doing so, aside from reducing verbosity, is that it would make the remaining virtual occurrences stand out. Those indicate either base declarations, or derived implementations that should be marked override (see #207 for that).

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    enhancementSomething can be improvedfixedSomething works now, yay!

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions