220 7598 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 18:26:33 -0500 Lines: 50 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 1383607592 23877 80.91.229.3 (4 Nov 2013 23:26:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 23:26:32 +0000 (UTC) To: "std-proposals@isocpp.org" Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCSKRWMD4EHBBKW24CJQKGQEDYZM74Y@isocpp.org Tue Nov 05 00:26:36 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ve0-f198.google.com ([209.85.128.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VdTXY-0007iC-96 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 00:26:36 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-ve0-f198.google.com with SMTP id c14sf6076701vea.5 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:26:35 -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=nhACtWrWHM1NVr4MQaA0k2MMsxpE9VoVF2v9Ef1w0fI=; b=kjbyq/kF/laicj+ptT4I8XfOGmlbnqfq3nhRmxhdjn26Yi1E1yZYDaYr2Cz+h3GzTV Z09o2iJbYR8CyFyKQdH0GuHZg6Ai9ElzPGfdxraHXyBaLTvoAbnd+ia5lC6VmDjTthCA DhQgdkkEU9aBHdIbj/kzqJFaen/aOEqLnSucfg9D5VVpL6Ujzc/ej8Mhc7qnRpDLG6bM EvcQTp9s+Mf25ft/peL2XpHzqWZxKRNk8gM/OCAg9C8g2sIHGDONbgpckI6YS3iZzKQs st8rU6pjw/+YnTffkmhBUlfROkqtDUe4L1hYKENHDdVdmpbflrwpasOpY/LUR+1PSN6J 3zCQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmQkHWLWyAJdhlJ3Axwpe8b1CzpVe6wNDRObFH/UCduczq4zVxpF+Ubqry51sSuU+JElNyE X-Received: by 10.58.94.162 with SMTP id dd2mr6714189veb.21.1383607594915; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:26:34 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.49.118.103 with SMTP id kl7ls2475580qeb.32.gmail; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:26:34 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.236.163.228 with SMTP id a64mr15861190yhl.35.1383607594394; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:26:34 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from mail-s68.mailgun.info (mail-s68.mailgun.info. [184.173.153.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 66si6468952yhb.215.2013.11.04.15.26.34 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:26:34 -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-vc0-f178.google.com (mail-vc0-f178.google.com [209.85.220.178]) by mxa.mailgun.org with ESMTP id 52782d29.467f030-in1; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 23:26:33 -0000 (UTC) Original-Received: by mail-vc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id ie18so5034889vcb.23 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:26:33 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.58.168.205 with SMTP id zy13mr6098166veb.19.1383607593496; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:26:33 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.220.250.6 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:26:33 -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:7598 Archived-At: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Richard Smith wrote: >> I don't think so. This scope, afaics, is private, with contents safe >> to be added without changing the ABI. > > struct Launderer { > virtual int get(Foo *p) = 0; > } *launderer; > > class Foo namespace { > struct FooLaunderer : Launderer { > FooLaunderer() { launderer = this; } > int get(Foo *p) { return p->_f; } > } static theLaunderer; I see. class namespace can be re-opened. >> 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. > > > *shrug* It doesn't seem like a big problem to me, especially not once we > have modules. I don't think it warrants a big heavy language feature of its > own. I'm not +1 for class namespace the specific idea. Can you elaborate on how to use modules to solve this? -- 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/. .