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

[Boris Wang]

And this is what ?

>
>       // six pages
>      ...
>
>        int func3(...)
>        {
>        }
>        int func4(...)
>        {
>        }
>        int func5(...)
>        {
>        }
>        int func6(...)
>        {
>        }
>        int func7(...)
>        {
>        }
>        a_type var2;
>     }
>     int func2(...)
>     {
>     }
>     a_type var4;
>     int func5(...)
>     {
>     }
> }

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

> private int var;
>
> public int func( .. )
>{
>}

this syntax has no other problem, except that some people don't like it.

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


"Regan Heath" <regan at netwin.co.nz> ??????:optbmn7svj23k2f5 at nrage...
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 07:43:26 +0800, Boris Wang <nano.kago at hotmail.com> 
> 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.
>
> I don't think you can make that assertion.
>
> Like several people have said both the : and {} syntax are useful to group 
> things together. That alone is reason enough to use them in C++ and indeed 
> that is why/how I use them.
>
> Like Derek has just shown (to my mind) the {} syntax makes a cleaner, 
> easier to read example, and further many editors will help further by 
> highlighting/finding and collapsing blocks declared with either : or {} 
> something that simply isn't possible if you specify them all in every 
> case.
>
> Regan