On 8 September 2013 07:14, dennis luehring <dl.so...@gmx.net> wrote: > Am 08.09.2013 07:48, schrieb Iain Buclaw: >> >> On Sep 8, 2013 5:55 AM, "dennis luehring" <dl.so...@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Am 07.09.2013 19:00, schrieb Walter Bright: >>> >>>> Outlining of member functions is the practice of placing the declaration >> >> of a >>>> >>>> member function in the struct/class/union, and placing the definition of >> >> it at >>>> >>>> global scope in the module or even in another module. >>>> >>>> http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP47 >>>> >>> >>> >>> "Parameter names need not match." >>> >>> please don't do this - that will nearly kill any easy way of finding the >> >> implementation, >> >> That depends on your coding style and is not necessarily true. Eg: I put >> function names at the start of the line. >> >> int >> foo_bar () >> { >> } >> >> So all global functions are easily grep'able ('^foo_bar'). >> >> Same thing is also done with C++ outlined members ('^Class::foo_bar') and >> I >> could see myself adopting the same for D aggregate methods too. >> >> Regards >> > > im talking about "Parameter names need not match." > so it will become hard to find the same overload of a method if someone else > writes int a, int b in declaration and int pa, int pb in implementation - > and the only benefit is beeing compatible with c/c++ - that will introduce > another point in all D-coding-style guides around the world not to rename > parameter in implementation
I was talking about "Parameter names need not match" too... I disagree that mismatched parameter names makes things hard to find, and by way of example, I just search for the function. I never say "right, I need to find this implementation" and grep for the parameter list in the declaration... Regards -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
