From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-17 13:03:02
Daniel Frey <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> writes:
| > If you think it is wrong, while being consistent with first principle,
| > then propose a a new first principle. The worst thing to do, I
| > believe, is to introduce barnacled hacks that comes from nowhere.
| > We need general rules on which to decide, we don't need barnacled
| > hacks that would appear "intuitive" at a moment when we don't have a
| > working definition of "intuitive".
| I feel accused of "introducing barnacled hacks that come from
| nowhere". I don't think you meant to be insulting, but would you mind
| to assume that I'm not just seeing things from such a narrow
| perspective? I could also assume you are just "blindly applying rules
| without looking at the consequences" - but I think you have better
| reasons for your POV.
I did not intend to insult you. Please accept my apologies if you
"barnacled hacks that come from nowhere" already have some instances
in the standard. I would not like to see them populated. What I
would like to see is a consistent set of rules, not a long list of
| I am actually trying to see where the idea of nested scopes comes from
| and what purpose it fulfills. This purpose is IMHO to keep the code
| readable with the smallest amount of code involved and the least
| number of interactions between the names of different scopes. This
Yes and no. Scope nesting implies name hidding, which also means
interactions between names of different scopes.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk