in reply to Re^6: Private method variations
in thread Private method variations

Do I understand you correctly? You would have My:: namespace be like private and Our:: namespace be like protected? Or at least close to it, not exactly mapping to the concepts of Java or C++, but instead maybe more the spirit of the concepts (with a little bit of perl mixed in of course). Or am I reading into what you are saying too much? Because I kind of like that, it would be pretty easy for most perl programmers to understand as well.

quick aside:
I know Bjarne himself questions the idea of protected, but I have always thought it wasn't that bad, as long as it was in capable hands.

-stvn

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: Private method variations
by adrianh (Chancellor) on Mar 02, 2004 at 12:23 UTC
    Do I understand you correctly? You would have My:: namespace be like private and Our:: namespace be like protected

    No :-)

    My:: and Our:: were two alternate names for the same code. On reflection I decided that My:: was probably a poor choice since my is all about scoping lexical variables, while our is about scoping the name of package variables which, from a certain somewhat skewed perspective, is what I'm doing in the code.

    Calling the functionality "private" or "protected" is potentially confusing since it doesn't do all the things that "private" and "protected" do. All it does is allow you to conveniently name a package for implementation methods so you can avoid having them interfere with your classes published interface.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Meditations