Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Isaac > Rodriguez wrote: > > > But the truth is that C++ and Java made a decision to do that for a > > reason, and the times when you have to work around those language > > features come once in a blue moon; they are the exception, not the > > rule, and you don't implement features in a language, or for that > > matter in an application, to simplify the exceptions; you try to > > implement the most common scenarios. > > So the most common scenario is that programmers try to poke around all the > time in the internals of classes even if the need to do so is > very rare? Otherwise it would not be necessary to have and use a > mechanism to declare everything private. ;-)
Historically, say in the '70s, it was probably the case that experienced programmers, trained in a very different environment, had to be nearly coerced to respect encapsulation; so the enforced encapsulation mechanisms of languages born at that time may well have been warranted. Nowadays, I agree with your thesis that having extra mechanisms to enforce encapsulation is probably supererogatory. Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
