Re: accessor/mutator functions

From: Dan Sommers (me_at_privacy.net)
Date: 03/01/05 

Date: 01 Mar 2005 07:34:08 -0500

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 05:37:44 -0500,
Steve Holden <steve@holdenweb.com> wrote:

> Indeed, but it also comes down to control paradigm. I don't *know*,
> but I'll make a guess that Dan, who admits to being "old school",
> hasn't done a lot of work with GUIs, which are inherently event-based.

Not a lot of GUIs, but a lot with (very large, very complex, multi
tasking, multi processor) event-driven embedded stuff, almost all of
which was in C and/or assembly languages. The C++ stuff I saw made me
want to gouge my eyes out, but a lot of us felt that way at the time,
and we think it came down to the particular (ab)uses of C++ involved.

> Really, of course, the only things you need to make explicit are the
> ones that readers don't understand :-)

+1 QOTW

We used to have holy wars over the appropriate level of comments in
source code.

Regards,
Dan 

-- 
Dan Sommers
<http://www.tombstonezero.net/dan/>
μ₀ × ε₀ × c² = 1