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

[Derek Parnell]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:21:35 +1000, Boris Wang <nano.kago at hotmail.com>  
wrote:

>
> "xs0" <xs0 at xs0.com> ??????:e7gddu$26gk$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>> Regan Heath wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:05:15 +0800, Boris Wang <nano.kago at hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> My vote is against removing these. I use them and prefer the : syntax  
>>> for
>>> private etc within class/struct declarations.
>>
>> My vote is against having either public: or public {} :)
>>
>> With both you can't see what applies to a declaration from the  
>> declaration
>> alone, but have to scan backwards for an arbitrary amount of lines..
>>
>
> Just because these reason.
>
> private a_type var;
>
> public static int func(...)
> {
> }
>
> this syntax is simple, clean and enough.
>

And this is what ...?

  private a_type var1;
  public static a_type var2;
  public static int func1(...)
  {
  }
  private a_type var3;
  public int func2(...)
  {
  }
  private static int func3(...)
  {
  }
  public a_type var4;
  private a_type var5;
  public static int func4(...)
  {
  }
  private static a_type var6;
  private a_type var7;
  public int func5(...)
  {
  }
  private a_type var8;

  private int func6(...)
  {
  }

Compared to ...

  private {
     static {
        int func3(...)
        {
        }
        a_type var6;
     }
     a_type var1;
     a_type var3;
     a_type var5;
     a_type var7;
     a_type var8;
     int func6(...)
     {
     }
  }

  public {
     static {
        int func1(...)
        {
        }
        int func4(...)
        {
        }
        a_type var2;
     }
     int func2(...)
     {
     }
     a_type var4;
     int func5(...)
     {
     }
}


-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia