* Domenic Denicola wrote: >From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoe...@gmx.net] >> I know that this a major concern to you, but my impression is that few >> if any other people regard that as anything more than "nice to have", >> especially if you equate "explaining" with having a public API for it. > >How do you propose having a private constructor API? > >How do you propose instances of the objects even existing at all, if >there is no constructor that creates them? > >This is one of those "only makes sense to a C++ programmer" things.
I think it is misleading to describe something as "a design goal" if it is not widely accepted as a design goal, and my impression is that this is not widely accepted as a design goal. I also think it is entirely normal to deal with objects you have no way of creating on your own. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015) · http://www.websitedev.de/
