• Jeroen van Bemmel (25/25) Jan 26 2003 Comes from pascal I believe
• Jeroen van Bemmel (24/24) Jan 26 2003 I have to come back on my previous post, in some cases 'with' might come...
• Sean L. Palmer (34/58) Jan 27 2003 Not only that, but consider this:

"Jeroen van Bemmel" <anonymous somewhere.com> writes:

Comes from pascal I believe

It does not seem like a useful feature to me, since it breaks object
encapsulation. Any code written like this:

class X
{
    int a,b;
}

X x;
with (x)
{
    a = 1;
    b = 2;
}

should be rewritten to:

class X
{
    int a,b;

    void setAB( int a, int b ) {
        this.a = a;
        this.b = b;
    }
}

The compiler can always choose to inline such methods to get eventually the
same code as 'with'.
One question: why can't I use 'with' in combination with structs?

"Jeroen van Bemmel" <anonymous somewhere.com> writes:

I have to come back on my previous post, in some cases 'with' might come in
handy. Namely when you want to intermingle the code with statements that are
not part of a would-be method of the class (when rewritten as described
previously).

In my case I have:

struct S {
    ubyte flag1;
    ubyte flag2;
    ...
}

code:

void f()
{
    S s;
    with (s)
    {
        if (flag1 != 12) return;
        // can do many things here...
        if (flag2 != 34) return;
    }

without 'with' I'd have to write a 'bit checkFlags()' that returns
false/true when the calling function should return (inlining would still
result in the same code though). But intermixing of code that is not related
to s' class could be an argument in favor of 'with'

"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer directvinternet.com> writes:

Not only that, but consider this:

class Foo
{
public:
    void Method1();
    void Method2();
    void Method3();
}

void Test(Foo**** nastypointer)
{
    with (****nastypointer)
    {
        Method1();
        Method2();
        Method3();
    }
}

No violation of encapsulation there.  I'm just using nastypointer to
demonstrate a point, which is that it could be incredibly inconvenient to
get at the object you use "with" with.  It should save the optimizer some
hassle lifting all the common pointer math out of the accesses.

One could argue, with classes, that you should just make a local reference
to the object and manipulate it through that.  That's C++'s way.  It works
too.

With is just syntax sugar;  it doesn't add anything new really, but it could
occasionally be convenient.  It might cause issues with name lookup rules.
That all said, I'm not particularly partial to it;  if it got yanked from
the spec, I wouldn't lose sleep.  ;)

Sean

"Jeroen van Bemmel" <anonymous somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:b12neq$1m10$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I have to come back on my previous post, in some cases 'with' might come

in
 handy. Namely when you want to intermingle the code with statements that

are
 not part of a would-be method of the class (when rewritten as described
 previously).

 In my case I have:

 struct S {
     ubyte flag1;
     ubyte flag2;
     ...
 }

 code:

 void f()
 {
     S s;
     with (s)
     {
         if (flag1 != 12) return;
         // can do many things here...
         if (flag2 != 34) return;
     }

 without 'with' I'd have to write a 'bit checkFlags()' that returns
 false/true when the calling function should return (inlining would still
 result in the same code though). But intermixing of code that is not

related
 to s' class could be an argument in favor of 'with'