In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Isaac
Rodriguez wrote:
But the truth is that C++ and Java made a decision to do that for a
reason, and the times when you have to work around those language
features come once in a blue moon; they are the exception, not the
rule, and you don't implement features in a
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Isaac
Rodriguez wrote:
But the truth is that C++ and Java made a decision to do that for a
reason, and the times when you have to work around those language
features come once in a blue moon; they are the exception,
You appear to have led a very sheltered life if the only libraries you ever
use are ones where you can always get a change to the library api in a
timely manner.
The thing here is that we are not talking about my life. I may not
have expressed my self correctly, but you are not understanding
C++'s and Java's approaches are vitiated by an unspoken assumption that
the library's designer is some kind of demigod, while the writer of code
that uses the library is presumably still struggling with the challenge
of opposable thumbs.
That might be your point of view. To me, the
After all, that's what duck-typing is about. There is no official
interface declaration, just an implicit protocol. And private methods
or members are part of that protocol as well.
I don't think so. Duck-typing is about implementing the expected
public interface, and has nothing to do with
Isaac Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In real life, the skills of the two people in
question are likely to be much closer, and since designing libraries for
use in all kinds of applications is a really hard task, it's likelier
than the library designer will make an error in designing his
The fact that I had
to resort to this trick is a big indication of course that genuinely
private members (as opposed to a 'keep off' naming convention) are a bad
idea in general.
The fact that you had to resort to this trick is a big indication that
the library you were using is bad
Isaac Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that I had
to resort to this trick is a big indication of course that genuinely
private members (as opposed to a 'keep off' naming convention) are a bad
idea in general.
The fact that you had to resort to this trick is a big indication
Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem is that when people design interfaces they don't (and
cannot) know all the situations in which the code is going to be used in
the future. Clearly separating the published interface from the
implementation details is a good thing, but
Paul Rubin schrieb:
Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem is that when people design interfaces they don't (and
cannot) know all the situations in which the code is going to be used in
the future. Clearly separating the published interface from the
implementation details is a
Isaac Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that I had
to resort to this trick is a big indication of course that genuinely
private members (as opposed to a 'keep off' naming convention) are a bad
idea in general.
The fact that you had to resort to this trick is a big indication
7stud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really, it does work (probably). There are other ways to get at private
members in C++ but this is the easiest.
I can also access private methods of a class if my sister backspaces
over private and types public instead.
In your example, no private methods
Dan Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a job as a C++ programmer and once tried this trick in order to
get at a private member function I needed. Didn't work: Apparently, VC
++ includes the access level in its name mangling, so you get linker
errors.
I don't have a copy of VC to hand
Hi All,
Now that I am really diving into Python, I encounter a lot of things
that us newbies find difficult to get right. I thought I understood
how super() worked, but with 'private' members it does not seem to
work. For example;
class A(object):
... def __baseMethod(self):
...
Jorgen Bodde [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto nel messaggio
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi All,
Now that I am really diving into Python, I encounter a lot of things
that us newbies find difficult to get right. I thought I understood
how super() worked, but with 'private' members it does not seem to
En Thu, 12 Apr 2007 05:47:57 -0300, Jorgen Bodde
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Now that I am really diving into Python, I encounter a lot of things
that us newbies find difficult to get right. I thought I understood
how super() worked, but with 'private' members it does not seem to
work. For
On Apr 12, 2:47 am, Jorgen Bodde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible to call a private base method? I come from a C++
background, and I liked this construction as my base class has helper
methods so that I do not have to duplicate code.
I'd like to see some C++ code that does that!
--
7stud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 12, 2:47 am, Jorgen Bodde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible to call a private base method? I come from a C++
background, and I liked this construction as my base class has helper
methods so that I do not have to duplicate code.
I'd like to see
Le jeudi 12 avril 2007 10:47, Jorgen Bodde a écrit :
I thought I understood
how super() worked, but with 'private' members it does not seem to
work.
I would add to what is already said, that you should just forget the
private -public - protected concepts in Python.
There is no access
On Apr 12, 5:04 am, Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7stud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 12, 2:47 am, Jorgen Bodde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible to call a private base method? I come from a C++
background, and I liked this construction as my base class has helper
methods
7stud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 12, 5:04 am, Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7stud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 12, 2:47 am, Jorgen Bodde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible to call a private base method? I come from a C++
background, and I liked this construction as my
On Apr 12, 3:02 pm, Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7stud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 12, 5:04 am, Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7stud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 12, 2:47 am, Jorgen Bodde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible to call a private base method? I
On Apr 12, 2:02 pm, Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7stud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 12, 5:04 am, Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7stud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 12, 2:47 am, Jorgen Bodde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible to call a private base method? I
23 matches
Mail list logo
