220 8088 <52A79CD3.50802@wanadoo.fr> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Proposal: Private extension methods Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:59:31 +0100 Lines: 55 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <52A79CD3.50802@wanadoo.fr> References: <05028bfb-6f6f-4ee8-9a6e-7e6eaa3a877a@isocpp.org> <64d699c7-62e0-48ce-9c58-c9b7a6038832@isocpp.org> <1902602.AxIk4I1HBX@tjmaciei-mobl2> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1386716370 17463 80.91.229.3 (10 Dec 2013 22:59:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:59:30 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDH67CONY4PBBVFZT2KQKGQEQTQEH7Q@isocpp.org Tue Dec 10 23:59:36 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-wi0-f198.google.com ([209.85.212.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VqWH7-0003lz-FW for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:59:33 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-wi0-f198.google.com with SMTP id hn9sf70570wib.9 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:59:33 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to: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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5K4BsOhH85BZ1eOjrgRD0spFBMTv2VZVUyVRBi4QNqo=; b=Mqc11n9p+kY4pE3uwJf/kputQxXsZsQEi7O1Y/WFDKmdShQVniu9Xr4FHtWBZ/wbdH BRP3RhpsSSLI99mqPthlIAvfzAv5jykdwUlykDACdn0s8Va1oSiAV2icmysbmremaIll 31TVIVtrH0UO3OBcmWA1Hxyr28q2pQjyDLBh6kM4ofA+iQny8W34wCihKsg+85OmWpCF 4Sn6Qy61hZpO/ATmJyKORB+0VFcIbl8A9uRYovQ5QsFr5st7wnl4v2EYIGHOA4YBwe/U TIxjgGHsBO0sGRyASCo3Kw2GiXTJKyV1WDrLAlLoemAMYABw29TQG4b7n6QGZDYPxzwL Dbp X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQknwcE5chNHCAVfsS34KVgAC5h6pBuEoXzlLh1haJSvTicPftDfAIM++2VS4uTPnDJh8QbU X-Received: by 10.204.123.71 with SMTP id o7mr96939bkr.8.1386716373032; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:59:33 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.180.81.133 with SMTP id a5ls787143wiy.12.canary; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:59:32 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.74.230 with SMTP id x6mr21397559wiv.29.1386716372049; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:59:32 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from smtp.smtpout.orange.fr (smtp09.smtpout.orange.fr. [80.12.242.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ce1si1799759wib.20.2013.12.10.14.59.32 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:59:32 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 80.12.242.131 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr) client-ip=80.12.242.131; Original-Received: from iMac-de-Vicente-Botet-Escriba.local ([92.139.34.180]) by mwinf5d18 with ME id zyzX1m00C3tBVfg03yzXEJ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:59:31 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 In-Reply-To: <1902602.AxIk4I1HBX@tjmaciei-mobl2> X-Original-Sender: vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 80.12.242.131 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr) smtp.mail=vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr 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:8088 Archived-At: Le 10/12/13 23:46, Thiago Macieira a =E9crit : > On ter=E7a-feira, 10 de dezembro de 2013 22:53:34, Klaim - Jo=EBl Lamotte= wrote: >> Could you clarify what would prevent this to be allowed? If it is allowe= d, >> then maybe clarifying if it's not a problem? > Looks like it would be allowed and it should not be considered a problem.= We > give the guns, if people point to their feet and pull the trigger, we can= 't be > blamed. I disagree. The goal is not to give any gun. Just to be able to refactor=20 the implementation without showing it at the interface level. > That can already be done if the interface designer left a loophole: a cla= ss > friend that isn't defined in this compilation unit. > > class Bar; > class Foo > { > // ... > private: > int k; > friend Bar; > }; > > > /// hack.cpp > class Bar > { > static int &get_k(Foo *d) { return d->k; } > }; > > > To be honest, I don't know what the standard says about two different > declarations of the same class in the same application but not the same > translation unit. But the above will compile in most ABIs. This violated the ODR. > Not to mention #define private public Note that the original idea is to don't show the private functions, not=20 making all private function public. Vicente --=20 ---=20 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 e= mail 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-proposa= ls/. .