Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   What do you mean? Ever heard of the nameless namespace? Everything in
> > a nameless namespace is local to that source file and definitely not part
> > of the public interface of that module. (In fact, there's no way of
> > accessing anything inside a nameless namespace from another source file.)

> You can't make a private method on a class without exposing that in the 
> header, can you?  (If so, I've been doing it wrong. :-)

  That's your argument for dismissing all the private types, functions and
data that can be specified in a source file (and which don't belong to the
header file)?

> >   Also an inner class doesn't have to be declared in the public interface
> > (only its name has to be pre-declared, but that's not very helpful from
> > the outside).

> You're still exposing its existance in the header file, meaning you get to 
> recompile stuff, for example. 0

  I don't understand that sentence.

> However, since C# makes the "makefile" structure part of the language, it's 
> possible to write tools that extract equivalent documentation from C# that 
> you can't as easily write in a portable way for C++.  I.e., even if you have 
> a complete C++ parser, now you need a whole lot of extra stuff to understand 
> *which* header files go with *which* source files when you're trying to 
> parse C++.

  I'm not completely following what you are saying.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message