 |
 |
On 03/31/2014 05:02 PM, Becla, Jacek wrote: > Daniel > > I noticed several classes have "abstract" in description, > but they are not really abstract (no pure virtual function) > > > /// Factory is an abstract class for specific QueryPlugin Factories If it bothers you, you can take out 'abstract' and call it an interface (which annoys Java people, I'm sure). It has default implementations because I had bad memories of vptr compiler/linker messages when I wrote this. > /// ColumnRef is an abstract value class holding a parsed single column ref Well, "abstract value class" is a term I borrowed from David Cheriton, and describes a class for values with no real behavior (other than convenience constructors), no private data, and should never be inherited. I am not sure if anyone other than him and those who have worked with him use that term. > We should either fix these comments, or turn them into real abstract > class. Can you? Please do not change the abstract value classes into pure virtual classes. They would be absolutely useless. Can you think of a better term for a "bundle of values with no behavior that should never be inherited from"? I don't mind removing 'abstract' from QueryPlugin::Factory, though. -Daniel ######################################################################## Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list To unsubscribe from the QSERV-L list, click the following link: https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=QSERV-L&A=1