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

[Andrei Khropov]

Boris Wang wrote:

> 
> "Andrei Khropov" <andkhropov at nospam_mtu-net.ru>
> ??????:e7gs64$2ucq$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> > Mike Parker wrote:
> > 
> > > Boris Wang wrote:
> >>> the harm of these is more than the benefit.
> > > 
> > > I disagree. I like them and do not want to see them go away.
> > > 
> > > > 
> >>> all these syntax produce non-readable, non-maintainable codes, and even
> >>> more  in large project with many developers.
> > > That's why large teams have coding standards. If you are going to work on
> > > a large project and something is unreadable to you, make sure your coding
> > > standards prohibit it. You'll still have to deal with it when modifying
> > > third party code, but there's nothing you can do about it.
> > > 
> > > I find the syntax quite readable and have no trouble with it. So I
> > > strongly appeal that it not be removed.
> > 
> > I agree with you.
> > I always like C++ way of declaring members instead of Java/C# way because
> > "public:" and "private:" sections visually separate interface and
> > implementation.
> > And if you want you can always establish coding standards for either
> > option.
> > 
> 
> In much C++ codes, the declaration and defination of a function is seperated,
> this is the main reason of colon-like syntax.
> 
> Otherwize, in no case can Bjarne Stroustrup make the colon-like syntax.

Well, I tend to agree with you.

But data declaration with group modifiers seems clearer to me anyway.
So I think it is good to have both styles.

-- 
AKhropov