On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 09:47:25AM -0700, Monty Taylor wrote: > Brian Aker wrote: > > Hi! > > > > For static class methods I would like to suggest we use: > > > > ClassFoo::StartSomething() > > > > over > > > > ClassFoo::startSomething() > > > > I think it would be nice to be able to recognize static members over > > normal methods used against the class object. > > I don't have a really strong opinion on this one. However... > > it seems to me that static methods are already easy to pick out - in the > class definition they start with "static" and in usage in code, they > start with ClassFoo:: > > My other negative thought is that StartSomething looks like a class to > me. Seeing ClassFoo::StartSomething() in code makes me think > "constructing a StartSomething which lives in namespace ClassFoo". If we > adopt this, that means I actually _won't_ be able to tell just by > looking at the call what is going on.
++ -- Stewart Smith _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
