Getting module of a class

[Bill Baxter]

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Don <nospam at nospam.com.au> wrote:
> Gregor Richards wrote:
>>
>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Bill Baxter <wbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The reason is this:  these days it's en vogue to make classes contain
>>>> as few functions as necessary, and to write everything else as
>>>> non-member functions.
>>>
>>> OT: is it?  What's this "model" called?  "Oh, C was right after all"?  ;)
>>>
>>> What are the supposed advantages of developing like this?
>>
>> Sounds like a poor impersonation of aspect-oriented programming, maybe the
>> idea is to make memberish functions not actually be members so that other
>> imports can write memberish functions that are as "1st-class". Sort of
>> ridiculous though.
>>
>>  - Gregor Richards
>
> No. The goal is to provide better encapsulation.
> There's a paper by Scott Meyers about it.
>

Yeh, that's the one I was thinking of.  Just couldn't remember who wrote it.

--bb