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

[Regan Heath]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:25:19 +1200, Regan Heath <regan at netwin.co.nz> wrote:
> 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.

Here I am talking about within class declarations, for module scope I  
either use the {} form or if I only have 1 thing or several which are not  
'conceptually' grouped I apply protection individually (much like Daniel  
Keep suggested in his reply to this thread)

Regan