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:]
Sent: Wed 10/23/2002 1:29 PM
To: K. Ari Krupnikov
Cc: Simon St.Laurent; xml-dev
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] XML as "passive data" (Re: [xml-dev] 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>
