Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Class invariants are alternatives to private methods and members in simple cases. However, I do agree that in many cases having private members can be rendered irrelevant if class invariants are used. Where security is a primary concern I'd rather trust the use of private members and methods than class invariants though. Of course, my lack of experience with Eiffel may be the reason I tend to prefer Java/C#/C++ constructs. :) -----Original Message----- From: Berend de Boer [mailto:berend@x...] Sent: Wed 10/23/2002 1:29 PM To: K. Ari Krupnikov Cc: Simon St.Laurent; xml-dev Subject: Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!) K. Ari Krupnikov wrote: >I disagree. Making something private marks it as unimportant to the >user (who, as the saying goes, might be you in three months). > No, making something private is mainly a hack by languages that don't have class invariants. Visibility of features to clients comes secondary here. Regards, Berend. (-: ----------------------------------------------------------------- The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
