Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!aria!dumbcat!marc
From: marc@dumbcat.sf.ca.us (Marco S Hyman)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Functions without side effects (was Old confusion)
Keywords: functionality
Message-ID: <1057@dumbcat.sf.ca.us>
Date: 15 Jun 91 17:36:47 GMT
References: <130242@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <4888@osc.COM> <72893@microsoft.UUCP>
Organization: MH Software, Hayward, CA.
Lines: 30

In article <72893@microsoft.UUCP> jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) writes:
 > 	object.DoSomethingWithInt(100);	// please don't encode parameter types
 > 					// in method names -- the compiler
 > 					// already does this for you!

Hmm. Is the C (and by extension C++) corollary of this rule:

	int someFunc(int someInt);	/* don't encode paramater types in
					   paramater names */

Nah.  Couldn't be.  Jim's posting from microsoft.uucp -- just look at any MS
Windows software...  :-)

Seriously -- I agree with Jim but wonder what his (and others) solution to
this question is.  Given a language that requires different names:

	Class someClass {
	  public:
	    int part();			// returns the part
	    void part(int newValue);	// sets the part
	  private:
	    int ???;			// what do yoy call this.
	};

what name do you assign to ???.  myPart? localPart? privatePart?

// marc
-- 
// home: marc@dumbcat.sf.ca.us		pacbell!dumbcat!marc
// work: marc@ascend.com		uunet!aria!marc