Re: [boost] Re: iterator ranges; eliminating private member functions

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-31 14:19:16

From: <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>

> --- In boost_at_y..., "Kevin S. Van Horn" <kevin.vanhorn_at_n...> wrote:

[many interesting things that I agree with]

> > [I discussed Three possibilities: (1) public member function; (2) 
> friend
> > function; (3) non-member, non-friend function.  I stated that I 
> prefered (3)
> > when possible, and lean toward (2) over (1).  The reason is to 
> limit access
> > to the internals of a class to only those functions really needing 
> it.]
> 
> There's a reason to prefer (3) in a general sense.  I forget the OO 
> principles name, but in essence the public interface should 
> be "minimal but complete".  This principle can be taken too far, 
> however.
> 
> (2) on the other hand should never be prefered.  Friend functions are 
> fragile and can open the code up to abuse.

Why?

> They also clearly 
> illustrate that the above principle wasn't adhered to.

Why?

> 1)  Why should you prevent them from writing x.some_operation()?

Because you can't make a member function non-friend.

--
Peter Dimov
Multi Media Ltd.