Jacques Lolieux wrote:
>
> Why not simply reopen the class as a namespace since a class is already a
> kind of namespace:
>
> template<class T> class A {
>     void f();
> };
> template<class T> namespace A {
>     void f() { ... }
> }
>
> class B {
>     void g();
> };
> namespace B {
>     void g() { }
> }

Currently it means a different thing, doesn't it?

--
KIM Seungbeom <musiphil@bawi.org>

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

"Allan W" <allan_w@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7f2735a5.0301241241.10a89440@posting.google.com...
> nesotto@cs.auc.dk ("THORSTEN OTTOSEN") wrote
> > ok...as the other threads advocate; shorter code *might* not be more
> > maintainable, but it often is. However, what we're
> > discussing here has to do with automation of trivial tasks, and that's
what
> > RAII does. If you don't have RAII, you do
> > copy and paste and try-catch-finally stuff as seen in Java; clearly not
a
> > good thing. Returning to Stroustrup's comments,
> > I believe he said something like "the number of errors (in a program)
> > increase at least linear with the size of the program".
> > So my point is that even trivial boiler-plate code can introduce errors.
>
[snip]
> Would you say that removing comments from a program is likely to
> reduce the error count?
[snip]
> But how about vertical compression?
[snip]
> Maybe what we really need to recognize is the number of statements
> that the program *ought* to use.

it is really besides the point to discuss how to measure the size of the
program. It should be understood from a
maintenance point-of-view. No matter how your source is indented and
commented and formatted and compressed and obfuscated,
if you've got more of it, it will be harder to maintain.

> Remember how the subject used to be about re-opening class scope
> to add private, non-virtual functions? I don't think this simplifies
> the complexity of a program at all. I think it adds to the complexity.
> That's true even if the total number of source code lines /
> statements / whatevers remains constant.
neither do I. And I didn't suggest it either. :-)

regards
Thorsten


---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

"James Kanze" <kanze@gabi-soft.de> wrote in message
news:d6651fb6.0301160145.721ffec7@posting.google.com...
>
>     implement class Foo
>     {
>         int f() const
>         {
>             //  ...
>         }
>
>         void g( int i )
>         {
>             //  ...
>         }
>     }
>

Now we're talking! But you have committed the cardinal sin of inventing a
new keyword :-(

(Hmm, how about "export"...)

hys
--
(c) 2003 Hillel Y. Sims
hsims AT factset.com

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

Carl Daniel wrote:
>
> This
> would save quite a bit of typing in template classes with out-of-line
> function definitions.
>

Nope. It would save a little bit of cut and paste.

--

Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]