mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (03/12/86)
I'd just like to put in a word for my favorite omission in the language:
const's as members of a class -- these would, at the very least,
avoid name conflicts between different parts of a system, and allow large
programs to have more mnemonic names used in the various parts without
having to build the class type prefix into the name itself.
By allowing them to be private as well as public, you reduce the
chance that some less wise programmer down the line may, either deliberately
or by accident, use that const in a way that breaches the fortified modularity
that you have entrenched within the class structure.
The erosion of these ramparts is one major pathway of software
aging. Not permitting constants to be protected within the bastion of
a class seems to be asking for trouble.
My next desire, after consts get into classes, is to allow them
to be virtual. This would allow the virtual class mechanism to readily
support objects that are similar except in some parameter to be represented
as one without requiring an additional field in each object (unless NONE
of the members of the objects are virtual already ...)
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat
(Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a!
mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat)
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.