Re: OO dot notation

[Jim Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net>]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> For all those who have been arguing that Ada would be much
> more successful if it allowed the object.method() syntax,
> it might be interesting to check out some of the goings on
> in comp.lang.c++.moderated, in the 'Guru of the Week #84'
> threads. Many of the C++ cognoscenti are coming to the
> conclusion that the method(object) notation is superior,
> and indeed that as few functions as possible should be made
> methods of a class.
> 

I had been following this thread a while back.
It seems that one of the big issues in C++ is the use of
functions inherited from a template parameter. If the function
is part of a class the object.method() syntax is required while
the method(object) syntax is required if the function is not
part of a class. This causes genuine problems for C++.

The cognoscenti mentioned above have determined that the
method(object) syntax is the most general, and this leads to
the conclusion that functions should not be made members of
a class unless absolutely necessary.

My guess is that the C++ language will not be changed for this.
Instead, people will simply be advised to limit their use of
functions defined within a class.

I assume that this tends to weaken a design's OO nature. It will
result in a lot of basically global functions. This can result in
weaker encapsulation of data within classes, and many other such
problems.

Jim Rogers