From: Wes Groleau <wwgrol@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>
Subject: Re: with child: access to parent
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 10:17:56 -0500
Date: 2001-10-02T10:17:56-05:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3BB9DAA4.42A3937A@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: S%ju7.12677$ev2.20101@www.newsranger.com
Ted Dennison wrote:
> it out yourself. Essentially, all those "with"s but the last one are redundant.
Some style guides suggest _always_ listing the parent specifically
if anything in it is referenced. I guess the idea is to prevent
compile errors if the child references are removed. But how many
places actually take the trouble of removing unused withs? And
what is the more expensive way to find the need to add one--to
carefully eyeball the code, or to compile and look at the messages?
--
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-10-02 15:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-10-02 10:06 with child: access to parent Peter Hermann
2001-10-02 10:49 ` Pat Rogers
2001-10-02 12:53 ` Marc A. Criley
2001-10-02 14:25 ` Peter Hermann
2001-10-02 14:44 ` Pat Rogers
2001-10-02 14:10 ` Peter Hermann
2001-10-02 14:17 ` Ted Dennison
2001-10-02 15:17 ` Wes Groleau [this message]
2001-10-02 16:14 ` Peter Hermann
2001-10-12 13:58 ` Simon Wright
2001-10-02 14:22 ` Pat Rogers
2001-10-08 10:51 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2001-10-11 15:07 ` Peter Hermann
2001-10-11 14:54 ` Pat Rogers
2001-10-03 0:34 ` dale
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox