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

[Regan Heath]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:20:08 -0400, Ameer Armaly  
<ameer_armaly at hotmail.com> wrote:

> "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.

I hate it and prefer the : syntax :)

Regan