a bit of rearranging?

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Nathan Myers <ncm-nospam@cantrip.org> writes:

| On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 06:19:26PM -0400, Phil Edwards wrote:
| > Would anybody mind if I rearranged the order of some of the member functions
| > so that 1) they're in more or less the same order in both classes, and 2)
| > they're in more or less the same order as described in 14882?  I don't
| > how much time you spend reading the guts of these files, and didn't want
| > to mess up anybody's scheme.  Right now I'm jumping all over the place...
| 
| If every time you touched a class definition, you re-arranged it to
| match as closely as possible the ordering
| 
|   typedefs
|   public constructors and destructor
|   public member functions
| 
|   protected constructors
|   protected member functions
|   overriding virtuals
| 
|   friend declarations.
|   private member functions
|   private member data
| 
| you would be improving the library each time.

I second this scheme.  Actually, I think every inline member functions
(perhaps with very few exceptions) should be defined out-of-class.

-- Gaby