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

[Boris Wang]

"Regan Heath" <regan at netwin.co.nz> ??????:optbmgohdr23k2f5 at nrage...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:48:57 +0200, xs0 <xs0 at xs0.com> wrote:
>> 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..
>
> That doesn't bother me in the slightest (which is why I don't want them 
> removed). I simply group all the public, protected and private methods 
> together and use the : syntax. I can mostly tell from method name and 
> context which access specifier any given function has (or should have) and 
> the syntax is mostly for the compiler benefit, not mine. I definately do 
> not want to have to put private etc in front of every single function 
> declaration.
>
> Regan

There are many coding style here already!

Please remember, we must speek English here for communion, and not the 
mother-language of you.

D should be a professional language for all the programmer, not a toy of 
someone.

At last, there is no heaven for everyone.