Getting module of a class

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Don wrote:
> Gregor Richards wrote:
>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Bill Baxter <wbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The reason is this:  these days it's en vogue to make classes contain
>>>> as few functions as necessary, and to write everything else as
>>>> non-member functions.
>>>
>>> OT: is it?  What's this "model" called?  "Oh, C was right after 
>>> all"?  ;)
>>>
>>> What are the supposed advantages of developing like this?
>>
>> Sounds like a poor impersonation of aspect-oriented programming, maybe 
>> the idea is to make memberish functions not actually be members so 
>> that other imports can write memberish functions that are as 
>> "1st-class". Sort of ridiculous though.
>>
>>  - Gregor Richards
> 
> No. The goal is to provide better encapsulation.
> There's a paper by Scott Meyers about it.

A great one:

http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/184401197

This goes straight to the discussion I was trying to avoid the other 
day. People still have dogmatic views of OO...


Andrei