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

From: Luigi Ballabio (ballabio_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-31 17:18:38

At 7:12 PM +0000 10/31/01, williamkempf_at_[hidden] wrote:
>--- In boost_at_y..., "Kevin S. Van Horn" <kevin.vanhorn_at_n...> wrote:
>
>>  [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.

You both probably read it already. Anyway, here's Scott Meyers' 
article which states the above principle:
http://www.cuj.com/articles/2000/0002/0002c/0002c.htm

Bye,
        Luigi

--