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

[Boris Wang]

"Andrei Khropov" <andkhropov at nospam_mtu-net.ru> 
??????:e7gs64$2ucq$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> Mike Parker wrote:
>
>> Boris Wang wrote:
>> > the harm of these is more than the benefit.
>>
>> I disagree. I like them and do not want to see them go away.
>>
>> >
>> > all these syntax produce non-readable, non-maintainable codes, and even
>> > more  in large project with many developers.
>> That's why large teams have coding standards. If you are going to work on 
>> a
>> large project and something is unreadable to you, make sure your coding
>> standards prohibit it. You'll still have to deal with it when modifying 
>> third
>> party code, but there's nothing you can do about it.
>>
>> I find the syntax quite readable and have no trouble with it. So I 
>> strongly
>> appeal that it not be removed.
>
> I agree with you.
> I always like C++ way of declaring members instead of Java/C# way because
> "public:" and "private:" sections visually separate interface and
> implementation.
> And if you want you can always establish coding standards for either 
> option.
>

In much C++ codes, the declaration and defination of a function is 
seperated, this is the main reason of colon-like syntax.

Otherwize, in no case can Bjarne Stroustrup make the colon-like syntax.



>
> -- 
> AKhropov