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

[Regan Heath]

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