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

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-01 11:02:20

It may be a good principle "in principle", but it seems as though some of
our most powerful concepts violate that principle. For example, iterators,
numeric types, and containers. So, I don't put too much stock in it anymore.

===================================================
  David Abrahams, C++ library designer for hire
 resume: http://users.rcn.com/abrahams/resume.html

        C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org)
          email: david.abrahams_at_[hidden]
===================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: "Luigi Ballabio" <ballabio_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 5:18 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: iterator ranges; eliminating private member functions

> 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
>
> --
>
> Info: http://www.boost.org  Unsubscribe:
<mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>