spir wrote: > On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:02:35 +0000 > div0 <d...@sourceforge.net> wrote: > >> > Both of these points may conflict with semantic considerations above: >> > we may want to use structs for fast creation, but if ever they mean >> > "things", we must think at referencing them manually and/or using >> > ref parameters. We may want to use classes for light passing, >> > but if they mean values, we must either never assign them or >> > manually copy their content. It's playing with fire: very >> > dangerous risks of semantic breaks in both cases... >> >> Perhaps, but they are tools to implement a program design; >> it's the program design that should be driving your choices not abstract >> semantic considerations. Go down that route and you'll never get >> anything done. > > I do not really get what you mean with "program design" as opposed to > "semantic considerations". I tend to think that "program design" should > precisely be driven by "semantic considerations" -- and that it's the main > purpose of good language design to allow this as straightforwardly as > possible. A bad langage is for me one in which one can hardly express what > is meant -- leading to what I call "semantic distorsion" ;-). So, what is > "program design" for you? > > Denis > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > vit esse estrany ☣ > > spir.wikidot.com
If I may add my 2 cents: program design is where, in another response, you choose to pass a cursor into a source text by reference and have methods update that reference directly instead of returning a new cursor. You have chosen a class, but a pointer inside a struct it could be done as well.
