From -8036128545565204036 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,5e585716c0fba88e X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: croizier@enstb.enst-bretagne.fr (Valery CROIZIER) Subject: Re: why are private functions part of a class' interface? Date: 1995/04/13 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 100371588 distribution: world references: content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII organization: ENSTBR, Brest, France mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.std.c++ In article <3mj5b1$nr5@locutus.rchland.ibm.com> pstaite@powertool.rchland.ibm.com (Philip Staite) writes: > |> Whenever I add a private helper function to a class, I have to change its > |> interface in the .h file and thus recompile all dependent classes (unless I > |> I think it would be useful to permit member function definitions without > |> requiring a declaration. > Also, if I can define a "member" function without the class > declaring it as a member/friend, this blows encapsulation. What stops > me from doing anything I want to the private/protected instance data? It could be possible to declare private methods without adding them to the .h file, since you can do it with Ada. But with C++, the encapsulation is performed *only* by the class descrition, which is usually in the .h file. As a result, there is no way you can safely define such a function outside the .h file and avoid recompiling everything. -- Valery