Subj : Re: Is well written code a rare species ? To : comp.programming From : Joe Butler Date : Sun Aug 14 2005 11:52 pm "Phlip" wrote in message news:ohOLe.245$hF1.167@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com... > akarl wrote: > > > Joe Butler wrote: > >> Maybe so for an 80 column terminal. But we were equipped with some > >> new-fangled graphical monitors. They comfortably display more than 80 > >> characters per line. > >> format might have been a better printing option. So, you see, it didn't > >> make any sense - but what added insult to injury was the team went > >> apoplectic when I started to format my functions thus: > >> > >> type > >> function name( > >> type parameter1, // comment > >> type parameter2, // comment > >> type parameter3 // comment > >> type parameter4 // comment > >> ){ > >> blah blah > >> } > > Uh, in theory so many parameters indicate a latent object, with its own > commentaries. I will crack down on you regarding that rule shortly after I > start following it myself... Ha! Guess who's name came up with most of the google results for 'latent object' while I was trying to clue up? None of the team mentioned 'latent object' in their objections - but, in reality, we were all fairly noobie object orientators (but that's not the image most of them projected). I'm still learning stuff about C 10 years after I started it. I don't bother with all the esoteric stuff in C++, life's too short and most of the stuff I do can be done in a straightforward manner without all the 'juicy' noise that gets stuffed into C++). So, anyway, it looks like 'latent object' might be something that's a prime candidate for objectising (yep, this just makes me think 'analysing' [happens in prison showers, not programmer shops]). .