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

Regan Heath regan at netwin.co.nz
Sat Jun 24 18:09:55 PDT 2006


On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:52:08 +0800, Boris Wang <nano.kago at hotmail.com>  
wrote:
> And this is what ?

In Dereks example the protection attribute applied to all 6 pages is the  
one written above them, that attribute is simple to find, and simple to  
remember while reading the latter 6 pages. I find it far easier to read  
than:


  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(...)
  {
  }

where I have to filter out all the redundant 'private' etc text in order  
to see the _actual_ code, the code which actually does something.

> If you can make a good enough solution for this problem, i'll give up.

Dereks example is how _I_ (and Derek perhaps) would write it, the code  
above is how _you_ would write it. Neither form is _incorrect_ it's simply  
a matter of personal preference.

>> private int var;
>>
>> public int func( .. )
>> {
>> }
>
> this syntax has no other problem, except that some people don't like it.

This syntax forces the use of redundant 'public' etc text, which _I_ find  
clutters the view and obscures and obfuscates the important parts of the  
code.

> The codes of mango project is more beatiful than the others i readed.

Each to their own (which is the point I am trying to make).

Regan




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list