Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Err... I think here I'll have to agree with Warp.  Why would you try 
>> to bypass the "code sanity checks" and all the paranoid safety devices 
>> to access something you shouldn't be accessing in the first place?
> 
> Because, every once in a while, the provider of the library wasn't 
> omniscient.

You can also try another library. ;)

> And to be able to tell easily when you're violating it. If you have to 
> read prose documentation to know whether some routine or variable is 
> private or public, *then* you lack modularity.

Speaking purely from the point of view of Scheme and functional 
programming, there's no such a fuss:  all the module provides are public 
functions.  You just read their names and parameters and use them.

You can see from this thread that while it began with CLOS, it ended in 
C++ because of its tons of private, protected, friend and other 
schizophrenic access mechanisms leading to complicated interfaces and 
behavior for modules.

Post a reply to this message