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

[Boris Wang]

"Derek Parnell" <derek at psych.ward> дÈëÏûÏ¢ÐÂÎÅ:op.tbndxng06b8z09 at ginger.vic.bigpond.net.au...
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 20:52:08 +1000, Boris Wang <nano.kago at hotmail.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> The problem you highlight with this example does not go away with either 
> style of coding, because without seeing the code at the matching open 
> brace, you can't tell what the scope of the contents is. For example, your 
> example could begin with ...
>
>   private void xfunc() {
>
> making all the functions nested and thus sort of private. Without actually 
> looking, you can't tell from just seeing the end of a braced code snippet.
>
>>> private int var;
>>>
>>> public int func( .. )
>>> {
>>> }
>>
>> this syntax has no other problem, except that some people don't like it.
>
> Oh well! Get used to the idea of free choice. Coders have been given the 
> opportunity to code using the style that find helpful or best expresses 
> their frame of mind. And that is not intrinsically a bad thing. I won't 
> force my style on you and I expect that you won't force your style on me, 
> okay?
>

I don't dislike each style syntax, except the problem i talk about.

What we discussed here, is not what you like or i like, if you really love 
D.


>> The codes of mango project is more beatiful than the others i readed.
>
> Yes, it is lovely code and easy to read. Well done Mango team. A lot of 
> that has got to do with adhering to coding standards regardless of what 
> those standards are.
>

Hmm, you have admit that the syntax without colon and curly braces can 
produce readable and maintainable codes.

But, the syntax with colon or curly braces,  has the problem of 
expansibility.




> -- 
> Derek Parnell
> Melbourne, Australia