[Development] override keyword on destructors

[André Pönitz]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Sérgio Martins via Development wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Looks like some 'override' keywords crept into a few destructors. This is
> probably because clang-tidy warns about it (and now QtCreator).
> 
> IMO we should avoid it, as it's misleading. Dtors are a special case and
> have completely different semantics. They don't replace their base class
> dtors. They're chained instead.

That's one way look at it. 

One can also argue that it's "something" for which some base implementation
exists and that might need double-checking when the base disappears.

It's also a hint when reading code that the base destructor's "virtual"
actually has not been forgotten.
 
> This is not 100% consensual, some people like to use it.
> 
> But it's discouraged by the Cpp Core Guidelines [1] ; gcc's
> -Wsuggest-override doesn't suggest it for dtors and neither does clang's
> -Winconsistent-missing-override.

> So clang-tidy is the one odd out.
> 
> I'll update the coding conventions if nobody opposes.

Please not.

Andre'