Re: [boost] the minimum degree ordering algorithm

From: Chuck Allison (cda_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-18 11:50:30

With all due respect (and you know I respect you, John!), my experience is
that this view, whatever its merits, is definitely in the minority, FWIW.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Max Skaller" <skaller_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] the minimum degree ordering algorithm

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
> > 2. Ordering of class members: it really helps readability to have public
> > members declared first, whenever possible.  If you don't like starting
your
> > class with an access specifier, you can always use "struct" ;-)
> >
> > 3. Mixing of interface and implementation: it can really help
readability to
> > separate member function implementations from their declarations
whenever
> > possible
>
> FYI: I do not find this at all. On the contrary,
> I really like all small functions to be defined 'in class',
> and I like the data members defined first, so that I have
> an idea what the representation is, and therefore be able to
> understand the implementation of those functions that
> are defined 'in class'. [Just my opinion]
>
> This style saves lots of useless comments
> saying what a function does: the comments are
> reserved for cases where the function is too
> long to display in class.
>
> --
> John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller_at_[hidden]
> 10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850
> checkout Vyper http://Vyper.sourceforge.net
> download Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net
>
> Info: http://www.boost.org  Unsubscribe:
<mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>