On Wednesday, 6 March 2013 at 13:44:39 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 3/6/13, Rob T <alanb@ucora.com> wrote:
>> Actually I had meant this instead, which reduces duplication
>>
>> class A
>> {
>>
>> }
>>
>> class A.B
>> {
>>      // implementation
>> }
>
> I don't like this idea at all. It again makes the class unreadable
> because you can't tell at a glance what it contains.

I suppose you are right, but I wouldn't want to break up a class except for defining a separate interface from the implementation specifics, so I would expect that anything not in the interface must be implementation details, which means it should not show up in the interface.

If I understood you correctly, what you want to accomplish is different from defining an interface. You want to be able to break up a class into smaller parts to save on indentations?

--rt