It seems we do not have naming conventions for private members. --Junchao Zhang
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:43 PM Matthew Knepley <knep...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 5:43 PM Junchao Zhang <jczh...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > >> I met several bugs that remind me to raise this question. In PETSc, >> object of type A can arbitrarily access object of type B's data. But >> designer of B may later change the meaning of its data (and of course, >> update B's interfaces, which are usually local to few files). The designer >> may think the job is done, but actually it is not. He/she has to grep the >> code to know where its data members are accessed (that is relatively easy >> to get) and what is the contract, for example, is an array assumed to be >> sorted (that is hard to know). With C++, one can use private to minimize >> data exposure. >> > > This just has to be coding discipline. People should not be accessing > private members. > > Matt > > >> --Junchao Zhang >> > > > -- > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their > experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their > experiments lead. > -- Norbert Wiener > > https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/> >
