Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Certainly if should-be-private members are exposed as public but don't 
>> document to the user which are private, that's a problem.
> 
>   I thought you were old enough to know some basic facts of life:
> 
> Rule #1: People *don't* read documentation.
> Rule #2: Read rule #1.
> Rule #3: Even if people read documentation, they do not have photographic
>          memory and they forget.
> Rule #4: Humans are imperfect and make mistakes.

Sure. "Don't read documentation" or "forget documentation" is as bad as 
"don't document it". But if it's a naming convention used throughout the 
language, people don't do it.

How many people name their own function to add a list of numbers as
   __builtin_addlist()
in C or C++?  Why not?  Because everyone who is even a little knowlegable 
knows that two underscore names are reserved for the compiler.

>   Why is it a bad thing to make the compiler check interface breaches is
> beyond my comprehension.

First, the whole "dynamic languages" bit at the start should indicate not 
everyone has a compiler for these languages. Secondly, it eliminates a whole 
raft of useful mechanisms.  Where's the C++ library to which I pass a class 
and it generates a SOAP interface parser for that class?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message