Ugh, OT for sure, but I just cannot resist the temptation to reply to this thread any longer. ;)
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Paul Davis wrote: > conceptually, i am not creating a distinct type of object - i want to > provide a particular set of objects with access to a limited set of > member functions belonging to an otherwise unified object. C++ won't > let me do that - it forces me to use an abstract class, multiple I'd say just use comments to express the access rules. Even though C++ provides public/protected/private, there's no way to actually enforce them - if someone wants to access the private members, it's certainly possible no matter what you do. So you might as well use public for these targeted-for-certain classes sub-APIs and describe the intended audience of the functions in comments. Of course, when public/protected/private are enough, they should be used. Standard language level concepts are always better, as the semantics are known by majority of (competent) developers. -- http://www.eca.cx Audio software for Linux!
