On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
> John O'Hagan wrote:
> > I want to know the best way to organise a bunch of functions designed to
> > operate on instances of a given class without cluttering the class itself
> > with a bunch of unrelated methods.
> >
> > What I've done is make w
John O'Hagan wrote:
I want to know the best way to organise a bunch of functions designed to
operate on instances of a given class without cluttering the class itself with
a bunch of unrelated methods.
What I've done is make what I think are called helper classes, each of which
are initialize
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:22:46 +0200, Thomas Jollans wrote:
> On Monday 23 August 2010, it occurred to John O'Hagan to exclaim:
[...]
>> I'm not sure if I'm on the right track here design-wise. Maybe this
>> could be better done with inheritance (not my forte), but my first
>> thought is that no, th
On Monday 23 August 2010, it occurred to John O'Hagan to exclaim:
> I want to know the best way to organise a bunch of functions designed to
> operate on instances of a given class without cluttering the class itself
> with a bunch of unrelated methods.
>
> What I've done is make what I think are
John O'Hagan wrote:
> I want to know the best way to organise a bunch of functions designed to
> operate on instances of a given class without cluttering the class itself
> with a bunch of unrelated methods.
>
> What I've done is make what I think are called helper classes, each of
> which are in
I want to know the best way to organise a bunch of functions designed to
operate on instances of a given class without cluttering the class itself with
a bunch of unrelated methods.
What I've done is make what I think are called helper classes, each of which
are initialized with an instance of
