appeal again: discard the syntax of private:, public: static: private{}, public{}, static{}.

[Ameer Armaly]

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:e7gsnn$2vhj$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> "Boris Wang" <nano.kago at hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:e7gau0$22li$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>> the harm of these is more than the benefit.
>>
>> all these syntax produce non-readable, non-maintainable codes, and even 
>> more in large project with many developers.
>
> While I agree with your argument and personally always use per-member 
> protection, other people obviously still like the other methods.
>
> What might be a bit of a compromise would be to get rid of : and keep {}, 
> since : has some issues (how do you turn off static, for example?).  {} at 
> least introduces a sort of "segment" of code, and makes it possible to see 
> when the attributes end.  With good indentation, and a good text editor, 
> you can always find what protectection and storage class something is.
>
> class A
> {
>    // The public "segment"
>    public
>    {
>        method
>        field..
>        blah
>    }
>
>    // Any public static fields
>    public static
>    {
>
>    }
>
>    // Hidden stuff
>    protected
>    {
>
>    }
> }
>
> Not that terrible.
I like it.  It's much more direct than using : syntax IMO.
 >
>