wycats at gmail.com
Tue Oct 16 07:21:44 PDT 2012
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Kevin Smith <khs4473 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. The one-class-per-file pattern is near universal. When there is more
> than one class, they tend to be in minor supporting roles (like
> exception-type subclasses or simple data structures).
> 2. Adding private, protected, etc. declarations to classes adds a good
> deal of baggage to the syntax that many developers will balk at. I'm not
> sure how to argue this yet, but it just doesn't have the "spirit" of
More importantly, it's too easy to mess up.
> 3. "Implicit declaration" is the wrong way to think about modular
> at-names. At-names, in this design, are simply *namespaced identifiers*.
> Since modules already define an implicit namespace, it's reasonable and
> convenient to hang these special identifiers off of that namespace.
I think this makes sense. What do you think about the typo problem? Not a
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss