From: Lyndon Samson <lyndon.samson@...>
Date: 2006-01-10T12:15:43+09:00
Subject: Re: global variables are bad??

------=_Part_15097_9814468.1136862929803
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/10/06, David Vallner <david@vallner.net> wrote:
>
> Lyndon Samson wrote:
>
> >On 1/9/06, John Maclean <info@jayeola.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Chaps,
> >>
> >>I'm not sure were I have read this but I recall a page or two saying
> that
> >>global variables are bad for some reason. I've overcome my main hurdle,
> of
> >>understanding some of the basics of OO.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >Interestingly it's allmost universally accepted that Global Variables ar=
e
> >bad ( in the same camp along with GOTO ), yet instance variables are jus=
t
> a
> >more restrictive variation on the same theme, yet they are best practice
> :-)
> >Guess the functional guys hold the high ground here.
> >
> >
> >
> The main advantage of instance variables to global variables is that
> they allow you to scope the variables down to -very- narrow contexts of
> validity, and they can be hidden outside said scope. If that's what you
> mean by "more restrictive variation", then scoping is the restriction
> that matters. And giving context to relate global variables via naming
> conventions sounds pretty painful.


I guess what I was thinking was, conceivably you could have a class with sa=
y
100s of methods, all with full access to any ( private/protected/public )
instance variables. How is that different to 100s of functions accessing
global variables?




David Vallner
>
>


--
Into RFID? www.rfidnewsupdate.com Simple, fast, news.

------=_Part_15097_9814468.1136862929803--