On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 12:06:02AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 10:58:39AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > .. > > [Well, my main objection is 'cosmetics'. I find > > > > row.some_funny_fill(row.some_funny_fill() + other); > > > > artificially obfuscated compared to > > > > row.some_funny_fill += other; > > > > With the latter I see 'no fuzz, just add it', the former is longer to > > type, longer to read and 'there might be something hidden in the > > function'. But as I said, I don't care too much...] > > How about an "add accessor" then: > > row.some_funny_fill_add(other); > > or > > row.addto_some_funny_fill(other);
Sure. add subtract multiply and or ... I'm payed neither for cut&paste code nor for wasting time.... Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
