Warp wrote:
>   Don't write such BS. I am talking about experience. For example I have
> totally changed the internal implementation of this class of mine several
> times, and the public interface has always remained the same regardless,
> and thus the changes have never broken any existing code:
> 
> http://warp.povusers.org/FunctionParser/
> 
>   And by "totally" I mean literally write everything from scratch. And
> no external code breaks. That's the nice thing about modularity. It allows
> me to do that safely.

Instead of using private:, you could just add an underscore to internal
variables. It's not like someone would end up using one of those without
even noticing, so you don't necessarily have to write long documentation
explaining it. If someone used your "private" members, and his code breaks
when you rewrite your implementation, he gets to keep the pieces.

I'm just saying languages with no compiler- or runtime-enforced data hiding
aren't that bad. I'm definitely not suggesting people just add an
underscore when they're using a language that *does* have real private
data.

Post a reply to this message