On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 09:46:10 +1000, Andrew Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scott, my examples are not runtime they are design/development time and that > my dear fellow is a lot different than you are throwing back at me.
As Robin H said, that's a very peculiar distinction to make... In fact, I don't even know what you think you mean... could you explain what you see as the difference and why these examples are one rather than the other? > If someone asks the question like Taco did, should I turn around and so not > to use the this scope? I would hope you'd say "As a rule, "this" scope should not be used. But, as with all rules, there are exceptions. However, you need to learn a fair bit about OO before you'll be ready to understand those situations when "this" scope may be acceptable." - if that is not your answer, you'll be misleading the newbie who asked you. > The 2 examples I gave don't rely on the breaking of the rule of > encapsulation, that would be like this bit of code in Java, there is no > checking to see if I set any of the variables to a -1. And, frankly, this is a very poor piece of Java. But it looks like an overly simple example that is intended to teach something rather than real code. Of course, it sucks as a teaching example too. I'm curious as to where you found it - I'm certain my team didn't write it (you indicate it's Macromedia-authored in a subsequent post). Let me say that I think Macromedia - and Allaire before them - has published a lot of bad example code. I've had plenty to say internally about the code quality in articles and sample apps. It's really a hot button for me (since I spent the best part of a decade auditing code and reviewing best practices worldwide for several computer languages). I'll also say that the issue is being addressed to some extent for Blackstone - Tim and Ben have already mentioned that Blackstone will probably include improved behaviors for Dreamweaver that generate much better code. The product and documentation teams are very conscious of the coding standards issue this time around. > And just because I choose NOT to use setters and getters all the time, in > rare cases I don't think it is necessary doesn't mean that I am a bad > programmer. Scott does. And your vehement adherence to your position is beginning to incline me the same way, I'm afraid. You're not even acknowledging that it is best practice to *not* use "this" scope - you're basically arguing that "this" scope is best practice (in some unspecified situations). That suggests that you don't understand the dangers, despite arguing to the contrary, or that you don't understand how to communicate to newbies why they shouldn't use "this" scope. --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
