Return types of KCompositeJob::removeSubjob() and KJob::removeSubjob()

[Thomas Zander]

On Tuesday 10 July 2007 00:08:29 Richard Dale wrote:
> When I do bindings I'm not quite sure whether I should just be an
> observer of the KDE c++ api, or an active participant and suggesting
> changes. For instance, if I was doing java bindings I might demand that
> all operator methods be removed, or that all operator methods should
> have non-operator method equivalents (that doesn't seem right to me).
> On the other hand correcting virtual method return types might be ok if
> it improves the c++ api. So covariant c++ return types are certainly
> ok, but missing return types in subclasses just strike me as wrong.

Very IMOHO;

languages like Java/C#/Python/Ruby tend to have more thought out concepts 
whereas C++ tends to just allow all of it.
I think its great if you see something that feels wrong and speak up. A 
pair of extra eyes are basically a good thing :)

-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20070711/6b810f89/attachment.sig>