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

[Regan Heath]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 08:36:52 +0800, Boris Wang <nano.kago at hotmail.com>  
wrote:
> "Regan Heath" <regan at netwin.co.nz> ??????:optbmgohdr23k2f5 at nrage...
>> 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
>
> There are many coding style here already!
>
> Please remember, we must speek English here for communion, and not the
> mother-language of you.
>
> D should be a professional language for all the programmer, not a toy of
> someone.
>
> At last, there is no heaven for everyone.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Regan