Re: Re: Scope woe

Eddie Drapkin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Luke<luke@blog-thing.com> wrote: > > What I meant, and I probably sounded a bit rougher than I absolutely > had to, was that it's pretty universally lazy and/or bad design to use > global variables inside a class, because classes have member > properties. From a purely philosophical standpoint, classes are > supposed to be entirely self-contained and any data that a method > needs to process is supposed to be passed as a parameter, or exist > inside the class as a property. It helps to think of classes like > cars on a highway; if you want it to go faster, you give it some gas > (pass a method a parameter), but if you want to turn on some music > while driving, the CDs should already exist in the car (accessing a > member property) even though they might have been added earlier (via a > different method with other parameters). That's probably not the > greatest metaphor, but I hope you see what I'm saying. > You are correct as there was no metaphor in here at all! This, "It helps to think of classes like cars on a highway", is almost a simile, but on the whole I would probably say that you were using an analogy :-) -- Thanks! -Shawn http://www.spidean.com