Rich Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Man, that's like trying to find a needle in a haystack. It's not
> that it's an email
> answer, it's that it's an _authoritative_ answer--and certainly more
> authoritative
> than any inference I could come up with.
It's only authoritative by assertion
On Tuesday, December 7, 2004, at 04:50 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:
Rich Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AFAIK the conventions used are implicit and not documented, either
in the code or elsewhere. The 'private' aspect is documented only in
a few of the *P.h headers and the absence of any 'publi
Rich Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, I will quibble with the 'documented in the files' part.
> What's there is pretty skimpy. FWIW, I'm a fan of _explicit_
> declaration of conventions and expectations. I've spent far too much
> time chasing down bugs ultimately attributable to mi
On Tuesday, December 7, 2004, at 03:31 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:
Rich Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I haven't seen the following spelled out, so I thought I'd take a stab
at it. It seems to reflect the general coding standards currently in
effect for the business objects.
For any given busines
Rich Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I haven't seen the following spelled out, so I thought I'd take a stab
> at it. It seems to reflect the general coding standards currently in
> effect for the business objects.
>
> For any given business object the following applies:
>
> There exist thre
