Robert Brewin wrote:
> My 2c ... always make things obvious and explicit if possible ( I pretty
> much never use the keyword "struct" and am a "C++ person" :)
Yay! I'm down with that then.
>
> On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>
>> FWIW- the C++ people seem to follow the convention of declaring classes
>> as structs if they have no private members. I personally don't like that
>> and would rather just see class Foo { public: ... } ... but it does seem
>> to be common practice and saves a line of text for things like:
>> struct MyCallback
>> {
>> int operator(int x, int y) () { return x+y; }
>> }
>>
>> thoughts? We should standardize one way or the other, I think.
>
>
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
