On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Jason Orendorff <jorendo...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Lars Hansen <lhan...@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> I dislike this proposal. (a) A lot of the code I work with already have >> fields-at-the-beginning as the predominant pattern in the smaller classes >> (jit, wasm) so this would be major churn for no gain. (b) For large >> classes this is an anti-pattern, like having all the vars at the beginning >> of a function in C; it separates the data from the functions that work on >> that data. (c) It brings private and public parts of the code close >> together, and separates public data from public methods. >> > > Objections (a) and (b) make sense to me, so let's make the rule "For > reasonable-sized classes, put all the fields together, at the top > (immediately after any necessary typedefs). For unreasonably large classes, > do whatever seems best (but let's try to avoid making more of these)." > Better? > Much better. > > I don't really understand objection (c); maybe an example from SM code > would clear it up. (But let me grant in advance that all style rules are > subordinate to George Orwell's sixth rule: "Break any of these rules sooner > than say anything outright barbarous.") > I admit this is a more generic concern. When I write code that is part of a module API I like to separate the public bits from the private bits and I usually do this textually (public members and methods at the top; private at the bottom) since C++ pretty much forces me to add the private bits to the publically visible class definition unless I want to jump through a lot of hoops to hide them and pay the cost of virtual methods. --lars , still misses Modula-3's partial revelations > > -j > > _______________________________________________ dev-tech-js-engine-internals mailing list dev-tech-js-engine-internals@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-internals
