[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: Mark-Jason Dominus <mjd@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 18:18:23 -0500
- Cc: mjd@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:56:40 +1100." <19981116085640.A6106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
> 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.).
Yes, that's what I meant.
> Just for ease of use, basically. It means you can tell by
> looking if it's "our" function or "not our" function.
Well, this ease-of-use has a tradeoff. When you look at a function
call, you know right away whether it's `our' function or `not our'
function, and that might be a benefit. But the downside is that we
have to keep that information up to date, and that takes time and
energy. So the question is, is the time saved by having the
information available going to offset the time spent annotating the
function calls properly?
> I have a personal reason for liking the & - they cue in my
> syntax-highlighting on this-is-a-function.
Oho. I take it your editor can't cue in on the trailing parentheses
instead? That would be my choice.