Hi Stephan,
> 2 cents from the nitpicker:
(when I saw interface-discuss had a new mail, I *knew* it would be you
answering one of my recent interface-announcements :)
> 1 The function is declared with an explicit
> throws(css::uno::RuntimeException) specification. Do we want to make it
> a rule to drop explicit specifications (where possible)?
> (Sutter/Alexandrescu item 75.)
(The implementation doesn't throw this exception, does it? It relies on
XFoo::static_type ...)
I'd say yes - according to the code review guidelines which are in place
since a few weeks.
Admittedly, the exception specification would be consistent with the
various ImplHelper*::getTypes, after which it is, hmm, designed.
> 2 The function, as it is defined, could be static, or const. It is a
> nice question whether the function should actually be declared static or
> const, or whether that would unduly constrain it to evolve in the
> future. (That is, whether the qualities that the function could be
> static or const are implementation details.) Opinions?
It probably should be const, at least ... undecided about static.
Ciao
Frank, who thinks he should make interface announcements longer before
embarking to give a CWS to QA. I'd hate to rebuild all 5
platforms/non/pros just because of this :-\
--
- Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer
frank.schoenheit@... -
- Sun Microsystems
http://www.sun.com/staroffice -
- OpenOffice.org Base
http://dba.openoffice.org -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
interface-discuss-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail:
interface-discuss-help@...
