home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Path: news.sprintlink.net!eskimo!dai
- From: dai@eskimo.com (Davidson Corry)
- Subject: Re: Typedefs (was Re: Hungarian Notation
- X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eskimo.com
- Message-ID: <DLyK0v.Kr1@eskimo.com>
- Sender: news@eskimo.com (News User Id)
- Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
- X-Newsreader: NewsWerthy 1.82 (unregistered)
- References: <4du0do$2q9@news1.usa.pipeline.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 19:41:19 GMT
-
- In <4du0do$2q9@news1.usa.pipeline.com>, grantp@usa.pipeline.com wrote:
-
- : typedef, like any other language feature, is a tool. A tool can be
- : overused as well as underused. No one can say precisely how much a tool
- : should be used, but avoiding its use altogether IMO falls in the
- : underused category.
- : I propose that a programmer who uses only a subset of the language is
- : less effective than one who uses the all of it -- all else being equal.
-
- There may be legitimate reasons for restricting use of certain language
- features as a matter of policy. For example,
-
- - your compiler does not implement them, or does so poorly
-
- - some of your staff, or potential new hires, are unfamiliar with
- or untrained in them
-
- - experience has shown their use to be prone to misunderstanding
- or difficult to maintain (e.g. goto -- and, please, let's not
- start that again... <grin>)
-
- But I suspect such reasons fall under your "all else being equal"
- clause.
-
- Certainly I agree that a good programmer should aspire to understand
- what each language feature is intended to do, and how to use it for that
- purpose -- if for no other reason than to know when _not_ to use it.
-
- And I think that typedef is too simple and fundamental to be discarded
- out of hand.
-