On Monday, 21 April 2014 at 13:03:50 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Monday, 21 April 2014 at 08:33:21 UTC, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
On Sunday, 20 April 2014 at 13:01:53 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
Yeah it does. If the function can be used generically across
many different parts of the program then it would be much
better implemented as a non-member function, even if it's
defined in the same module as an associated class.
I agree. If a function is generally useful outside the
context of a class, it should not be defined in the class.
I think this view is too simple. Even if a function is
generally useful you risk ending up with maintenance problems
later on when you need to optimize your code. So if in doubt,
make it local.
I agree, but I think that's more a question of *when* a function
is considered "generally useful". To me, that is when I have an
actual use case for it beyond the one for which it was originally
designed, and not just because I think it might come in handy
some time in the future. "If in doubt, make it private" is
always a good guideline.
