220 7596 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Zhihao Yuan Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Fixing the private method issue Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:36:29 -0500 Lines: 63 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <5eeafd6f-32f3-4281-9374-617af852fe21@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1383597388 1444 80.91.229.3 (4 Nov 2013 20:36:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 20:36:28 +0000 (UTC) To: "std-proposals@isocpp.org" Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCSKRWMD4EHBBTUK4CJQKGQETN44MTQ@isocpp.org Mon Nov 04 21:36:34 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ie0-f200.google.com ([209.85.223.200]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VdQsy-0008FX-7C for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 21:36:32 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-ie0-f200.google.com with SMTP id aq17sf22974822iec.11 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 12:36:31 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:sender:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=fhqj+i5ul495b5fWvZRPguOlJhIpxCCIJY4rAIrlQqc=; b=D6Te5Wf0UDIISLeQMNvDcfa1t33ReVAYGQ196IkMyuZK8javGv2o2c9fZAsFMJ6Htr pvAiDzM0l5DItg7Eg5n/C58iF5Vv7yllrbVkgYopcr0HjcCih3thAhY/ntQUutQ9keu9 BKJR0EhlRToHu0Qz2SoUloxsoUpXeqC7YQS/l0+BlhsLux4DjeuRbJRjaz2Kfw6HZ9t8 mechjrl4RlsbOhRGkptqHBfXLRjwzVNRJsk4CesUxOBtrMVIl9PaAWnutiCWB2SrRY51 hYZgy3q4iwqpxqYO1eU3qc1jhi5TiVgW65k+A3EDiMvh/PZ5QermYUV5ZhFXRYIspNbU TH0g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmnpmY+u2gArqcuE4e4eOmhH+kFB4jN0i0xR8ryw2aMIxTd5TT8a2iEWqZfMfP4a8EFyNZO X-Received: by 10.43.101.133 with SMTP id da5mr5076585icc.20.1383597391261; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 12:36:31 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.49.117.69 with SMTP id kc5ls2445844qeb.42.gmail; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 12:36:30 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.236.142.210 with SMTP id i58mr15303233yhj.33.1383597390274; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 12:36:30 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from mail-s68.mailgun.info (mail-s68.mailgun.info. [184.173.153.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id c66si6267255yhm.80.2013.11.04.12.36.30 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 12:36:30 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of bounce+3f9131.69110-std-proposals=isocpp.org@miator.net designates 184.173.153.196 as permitted sender) client-ip=184.173.153.196; Original-Received: from mail-ve0-f173.google.com (mail-ve0-f173.google.com [209.85.128.173]) by mxa.mailgun.org with ESMTP id 5278054d.7fe06a3481b0-in3; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 20:36:29 -0000 (UTC) Original-Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id jw12so1835143veb.18 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 12:36:29 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.58.201.234 with SMTP id kd10mr83892vec.32.1383597389218; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 12:36:29 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.220.250.6 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 12:36:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailgun-Sid: WyI3MTBkYiIsICJzdGQtcHJvcG9zYWxzQGlzb2NwcC5vcmciLCAiNjkxMTAiXQ== Original-Sender: zy@miator.net X-Original-Sender: zy@miator.net X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of bounce+3f9131.69110-std-proposals=isocpp.org@miator.net designates 184.173.153.196 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=bounce+3f9131.69110-std-proposals=isocpp.org@miator.net; dkim=pass header.i=@miator.net Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:7596 Archived-At: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Richard Smith wrote: >> //foo.cc: >> >> class Foo namespace { > > > "class X namespace" looks a lot like "allow me to violate access control > here, please". I don't think so. This scope, afaics, is private, with contents safe to be added without changing the ABI. > But since we're brainstorming here, we can get most of the benefit here with > extension methods alone: > > // foo.h > class Foo { > public: > void doWork(); > private: > int _f; > friend struct FooImpl; > }; > > // foo.cc > struct FooImpl { > static void doWorkHelper(Foo *this) { > doSomethingWith(_f); > } > }; > > void Foo::doWork() { > doWorkHelper(); > } I see two problems here: 1. Program is written for human to read. This approach, with functions taking pointer to objects, basically reverted C++ to C; 2. Friend is flawed: what you need is to grant accessibility to a set of functions, but what you do is to grant accessibility to another class scope. I read this as another "solution from implementation's view" like using private to make a class non-copyable. There should be more simple, more obvious answer to the problem raise in this thread. -- Zhihao Yuan, ID lichray The best way to predict the future is to invent it. ___________________________________________________ 4BSD -- http://4bsd.biz/ -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. .