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

[Ben Phillips]

In article <optbof6t0b23k2f5 at nrage>, Regan Heath says...
>
>  private a_type var1;
>  public static a_type var2;
>  public static int func1(...)
>  {
>  }
>  private a_type var3;
>  public int func2(...)
>  {
>  }
>  private static int func3(...)
>  {
>  }
>  public a_type var4;
>  private a_type var5;
>  public static int func4(...)
>  {
>  }
>  private static a_type var6;
>  private a_type var7;
>  public int func5(...)
>  {
>  }
>  private a_type var8;
>
>  private int func6(...)
>  {
>  }
>

This is a terribly biased example against individual protection attributes,
because that code is organized so poorly. Its illogical to assume that people
who put a protection attributes on each field/function just randomly glop their
code together like in your example. I use individual protection attributes, yet
I still structure my code so the private functions are in one area and the
public ones in another.