Re: Properties

[Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>]

> > I defiantly agree with the Hungarian notation.
>
> <tossed cookies> followed by <dry heaves>
>
> The type declaration carrys the type information. It does NOT
> belong in the name (of the variable).  It creates a  
> maintenance nightmare also -- change the type and all
> instances of the name must be changed.  
>
> BLECH.

Eh, my mistake, I meant to say "I defiantly agree with you on the
Hungarian notation."
> > I agree with you about the WORD, DWORD, pointer thing. It
> > would be better to have actual types with actual
> > parameters/fields...
>
> Yes. Every event and API is usually specific enough for real
> type definitions.
>
> > but then the same could be said about
> > the 'typless' FSes for *nix and windows
>
> That is something different. A "file" is a perfectly generic
> container of information. Do you want to allow your software
> to decide the format? Or would you prefer the OS to do it
> instead?  Something must decide.

Er, I think you misunderstand what I mean by "typed files" very often
"the software" does NOT & should NOT decide the format; if that were
the case then "the software" could say "my HTML file writer doesn't
need ending tags!" or "I don't need to write the header for an .ICO
file!" which misses the whole point of having a specified standard.

IOW, the type of a file, having some definition, SHOULD ensure that
the file has the correct layout... like Access ensures that our
"pointer" *IS* to a variable of the specified type.

> Prior to Unix, everything was a unit record of some sort. It
> still is on the non-UNIX (non-hierarchical) parts of a
> mainframe:
>
> //DATAOUT DD DSN=M0DXYZ.DATA,                      
> //           DISP=(NEW,CATLG,DELETE),                
> //           SPACE=(TRK,(10,10),RLSE),                
> //           DCB=(RECFM=FB,LRECL=23,BUFNO=10,OPTCD=C)
>
> Do you want to go back to specifying all these file
> attributes? RECFM=? LRECL=? BLKSIZE=? bLECH. Not to
> mention it complicates ftp transfers etc. :
>
> LOCSITE LRECL=80 RECFM=FB BLOCKSIZE=320 CYLINDERS \
>   PRIMARY=2 SECONDARY=2
>
> Blexhch.

It actually makes a lot of sense to be able to have some sort of "unit
record" in files, especially if you are dealing with databases and, in
that case, units should be able to be individually locked.

As for specifying all the little attributes of some file, why not
treat it the same way I do in Ada: unless there is some specific
reason to do otherwise [like hardware interfacing] let the compiler
choose the attributes of the type like 'Size, 'Bit_Order?

>
> One of the best things about Unix is that it finally tossed
> aside all of these silly hinderances.  Everything since has
> copied this thinking.

Just because everything copies the thinking neither means that the
thinking is correct or useful. (Though it doesn't mean that it's wrong
or useless either.)