« Design Master's Revit Survey 2019 | Main | Here's what's new in DWG from Open Design Alliance »

Sep 15, 2020


Owen Wengerd

Now you're talking my language, Ralph! Always good stuff from LEDAS, but I disagree with Ivan's conclusion that it is better to not make the base visitor class abstract. I think the top-level base class should *always* be abstract, a pure interface. An intermediate second-level base class can be introduced with "empty" implementations of all virtual functions. In this way "you can have your cake, and eat it too". Then, each implementation scenario can decide which base class is most appropriate for it: the top-level abstract base that ensures compile-time errors in case the abstract interface changes; or the non-abstract second-level base if the implementation doesn't care about changes in the top-level interface.

Ivan Rykov

Hi Owen,
nice to meet you here and I'm very pleased that you've got up to this level of details.
Good note and I agree that it quite makes sense.


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


Search This Blog



Thank you for visiting!