[bind10-dev] Name::reverse()?

[Michael Graff]

On 2/19/10 9:50 AM, Shane Kerr wrote:
> Michael disagrees, but I think he comes from a relatively purist
> object-oriented point of view, where everything is attached to an
> object, because... well, everything is attached to an object. :)

Ironically I don't come from an OOP background, and in fact am not a
purist at all.  I'm very much into having rich libraries which do
simple, specific things in simple, specific ways though, and having a
class AND a helper set of non-class calls is always going to be harder
to maintain and use than a class alone.

If a method acts on a class and only a class, then it belongs in that
class, IMHO.  It's just that simple :)

--Michael