| Grouping Program Modules [message #35316] |
Fri, 30 May 2003 13:23 |
![Paul Van Delst[1] is currently offline](theme/default/images/xoffline.png.pagespeed.ic.XRkd1fkXye.png "Paul Van Delst[1] is currently offline")
Paul Van Delst[1]
Messages: 1157
Registered: April 2002
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Had to start a new thread for this.
David Fanning wrote:
>
> Paul van Delst (paul.vandelst@noaa.gov) writes:
>
>> Huh? Either they're related or they're not. Why should whether you write the code
>> procedurally (is that a word?) or OO-ly make any difference? Apart from increasing the
>> calling overhead in the case of the OO way (in the manner that I like to use "objects").
>
> But let me just quote the Coyote Rule for Grouping
> Program Modules:
>
> "Think of file groupings as *commands*. All the
> program modules that make up a single IDL command
> go in a single file, with the last module in the
> file having the "name" of the command.
<snip>
For most things I would agree. But for the case of data structures, I prefer to think of
grouping routines in a single file in terms of their dependencies. E.g., if I define a
structure, I want the data object constructor and its methods in the same file --
independent of the language. That seems more logical to me.
It also makes for easier reading when I do an "ls -l".
paulv
--
Paul van Delst
CIMSS @ NOAA/NCEP/EMC
Ph: (301)763-8000 x7748
Fax:(301)763-8545
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
