George --

> I really think that it would accomplish three things: First, as mentioned, it partitions the problem better. This leads, in and of itself, leads to a high degree of cohesion withing the system. Namely, that the method with the actual assign statement (This.somevalue = ParmValue) aren't also doing the validating. Finally, it also helps in debugging because it makes it easier to find the error. Assuming that the _assign for some reason trips the error handler, you've got a significantly smaller amount of code to deal with.

I'll have to chew on that! This is one of the areas of OO programming that I've postponed -- scope of methods and properties. I do keep reading how folks like you apply the concepts to a specific issue.

>>Say, have you seen the new bio of "de Mayr"?

>Who wrote it? Anyone local to the Chicago writing/press scene? Bob Greene? I always considered that the "definitive" book on Richard J. Daly was Mike Royko's "Boss". I'll keep an eye out for it next time I'm at the mall

A couple folks I'm not familiar with -- probably university types like from Northwestern or something! Royko's was great -- I think largely a collection of his columns, wasn't it? It had about 50 chapters and had the quick pace of a quick read. Royko expressed what he felt -- both positive and negative -- about Daley, but you could tell that whatever else, he respected, and I think cared about him as a fellow Chicagoan. This new work is probably more detailed, provides a broader perspective, but, I think in it, Daley has become an "historical figure."

BTW, did you ever see that PBS show on him (Daly)?

Did Bill Kurtis do that one -- or maybe I'm thinking of something I saw on the History Channel. (BTW, John Coleman was, I believe, one of the founders of the Weather Channel -- probably living somewhere now where there's never any snow!)

Anyways, I do remember a special. The one scene that stuck out vividly was Daley escorting QE2 down the aisle at a ceremony when she visited the city. Not bad for a kid from Bridgeport!

>>Ah, here I go off topic again. If we return to the city by the Lake again, maybe we could start a new thread in chatter.

>Not a bad idea.:-)

Done %)