nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp escreveu:
> > nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't follow.
> > 
> >   Why not? Having the compiler check for breaking of agreements (eg. "don't
> > access these variables") is much better than oral agreements. The compiler
> > is much better at catching mistakes than you are.

> Now I (think I) understand the root of our disagreement.  I'm thinking 
> about functional programming here with only functions accessible per 
> interface, you're thinking about what variable can be accessed and 
> whatnot in a severely mutable setting.  It all becomes really hard when 
> you allow state to dominate.  So hard that even very experienced 
> programmers can face dificulty handling it all, thus having to invent 
> all sorts of levels of accessibility rather than just rely on lexical scope.

  Not all member functions have to be public either. It's extremely common
for a class to have private member functions which are part of its internal
implementation and not even intended to be part of the public interface.

  I would say that being able to define private member functions is equally
important as being able to define private member variables.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message