Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> That's an IDE issue, not a language issue. See, for example, Eiffel's IDEs.
> 
>   IMO a language shouldn't rely on IDE or text editor features in order to
> be readable.

So you'd rather rely on the programmer doing a job the IDE ought to be 
automating, just to insist it's there?

We're discussing basically manually built .h files vs automatically built .h 
files, and you're suggesting that manually built .h files are better because 
the compiler can force someone to provide them, whereas with an IDE they 
might not have a nice summary?  I don't think you really mean that.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message