[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (techy) Code specs?
- To: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: (techy) Code specs?
- From: Bek Oberin <gossamer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:56:40 +1100
- In-reply-to: <19981115183508.4703.qmail@xxxxxxxxxx>; from Mark-Jason Dominus on Sun, Nov 15, 1998 at 01:35:08PM -0500
- References: <19981115202336.D3347@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <19981115183508.4703.qmail@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
> > put & and () on all functions zigzag's defined.
> I don't understand why you want to make this distinction between
> zigzag's internal functions and the other functions. What's the
> point? What if a function moves out of the core?
I don't mean zigzag's internal and external functions, I mean
ones we've written (zigzag itself and ZigZag::*) and ones we haven't
(eg Curses, DB, etc.).
Just for ease of use, basically. It means you can tell by
looking if it's "our" function or "not our" function.
> My vote: Omit & everywhere. Less punctuation is always better.
I have a personal reason for liking the & - they cue in my
syntax-highlighting on this-is-a-function. The diseases I have mean
my reading isn't near as good as it used to be, and I -need- the
syntax highlighting. I can't read code without it anymore ...
: gossamer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.tertius.net.au/~gossamer/
: In computer science, we stand on each other's feet.
: -- Brian K Reid