From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,419968b3ba96e143 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-16 12:44:20 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!news.uunet.ca!nf3.bellglobal.com!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3D5D55F0.7000605@worldnet.att.net> From: Jim Rogers User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: OO dot notation References: <1029357303.33848@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:44:19 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.86.36.45 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1029527059 12.86.36.45 (Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:44:19 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:44:19 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:28137 Date: 2002-08-16T19:44:19+00:00 List-Id: 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