On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 01:52:31PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Free functions should ideally not access class variables,
This assumes that the class is not a random collection of individual
thing - which it is in our case - but "something real".
> the functions should be free only when they don't need access to the
> class variables and only need the class's public interface for
> implementation. (and then of course no class variables should be
> public.)
> This is the encapsulation part. (or course this can be simulated with
> anon namespaces, but then the design is more "open" and access to the
> variables are not as controlled.)
Handing out non-const refs to members is completely destroying the type
of encapsulation you speak of here ("access").
The two things are functionality-wise completely equivalent.
But: In the class solution you have to show private members like
'last_files_' in the .h, whereas in the namespace solution they are
hidden in the .C. So this is better encapsulation of the "visibility"
type.
> So, I guess, all in all I am more in favor of class variables than
> variables in a anon namespace.
Which is a bit of a surprise to me.
We have a draw when it comes to encapsulating access and a point for
namespaces when it comes to not exposing implementation details.
Well. So let's stay with the class as it is.
I am not religious about this bit.
Andre'
