• To: ari@c... (K. Ari Krupnikov)
• Subject: Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
• From: tblanchard@m...
• Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:14:13 +0200
• Cc: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <86d6q0ewn2.fsf@p...>

On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 10:19  PM, 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).

Whats unimportant to you may be crucial to me.  You're not qualified to 
make that call.  Neither am I.

OTOH, I agree that communicating that you think its unimportant or 
possibly unreliable (ie you might capriciously change it in the next 
version) is good.  But I don't believe the compiler should *enforce* 
that.  Because its up to me whether I want to take that risk.

FWIW, the convention in ObjectiveC is to make methods intended to be 
private start with an underscore.  Like _recalculateInternalState or 
something.

• References:
  • Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
    • From: ari@c... (K. Ari Krupnikov)

• Prev by Date: Re: What is XML For?
• Next by Date: Re: Specifying a Unicode subset
• Previous by thread: [<martin@o...>] Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
• Next by thread: Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread