Steven D'Aprano wrote: > That is total and utter nonsense and displays the most appalling > misunderstanding of probability, not to mention a shocking lack of common > sense.
While I agree that the programming job itself is not a program and hence the "consider any possibility" simply doesn't make any sense I can find a bit of truth in the general idea that *in programs* it is dangerous to be deceived by probability. When talking about correctness (that should be the main concern) for a programmer "almost never" means "yes" and "almost always" means "not" (probability of course for example kicks in about efficency). Like I said however this reasoning doesn't work well applied to the programming process itself (that is not a program... as programmers are not CPUs; no matter what bigots of software engineering approaches are hoping for). Private variables are about the programming process, not the program itself; and in my experience the added value of C++ private machinery is very low (and the added cost not invisible). When working in C++ I like much more using all-public abstract interfaces and module-level all-public concrete class definitions (the so called "compiler firewall" idiom). Another thing on the same "line of though" of private members (that should "help programmers") but for which I never ever saw *anything but costs* is the broken idea of "const correctness" of C++. Unfortunately that is not something that can be avoided completely in C++, as it roots in the core of the language. Andrea -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
