Subj : Re: "File Scope" objects To : comp.programming,comp.software-eng From : Chris Sonnack Date : Fri Aug 26 2005 03:00 pm Phlip writes: >>>> ...no sane programmer would name a non-local, 'buff'..... > > A flag for the records of physically fit individuals? It's not the word, it's the use of a non-local variable so named. >> Having not unrecently read someone speak very much in favor of >> file scope objects, I'd be interested in a little round-about >> on the matter,... > > Give everything the most restricted scope possible. Absolutely. And when several functions in one module share the same datum? > The book /Large Scale C++ Software Design/ reveals how we should > prefer the leanest possible .h files,... I very much agree. Much easier to examine what a class does when you only have to look at its public interface. > ...including by creating private functions inside .cpp files. > Private classes are an extension of this concept. Which are a form of file scoped object, so I take it you are in favor of such things? > Design is about enabling changes,... That's ONE of the things it's about. -- |_ CJSonnack _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________| .