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 th
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
> You appear to have led a very sheltered life if the only libraries you ever
> use are ones where you can always get a change to the library api in a
> timely manner.
>
The thing here is that we are not talking about my life. I may not
have expressed my self correctly, but you are not understand
Isaac Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In real life, the skills of the two people in
>> question are likely to be much closer, and since designing libraries for
>> use in all kinds of applications is a really hard task, it's likelier
>> than the library designer will make an error in design
> After all, that's what duck-typing is about. There is no official
> interface declaration, just an implicit protocol. And "private" methods
> or members are part of that protocol as well.
I don't think so. Duck-typing is about implementing the expected
public interface, and has nothing to do w
>
> C++'s and Java's approaches are vitiated by an unspoken assumption that
> the library's designer is some kind of demigod, while the writer of code
> that uses the library is presumably still struggling with the challenge
> of opposable thumbs.
That might be your point of view. To me, the li
Isaac Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The fact that I had
> > to resort to this trick is a big indication of course that genuinely
> > private members (as opposed to a 'keep off' naming convention) are a bad
> > idea in general.
>
> The fact that you had to resort to this trick is a big
Paul Rubin schrieb:
> Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The problem is that when people design interfaces they don't (and
>> cannot) know all the situations in which the code is going to be used in
>> the future. Clearly separating the published interface from the
>> implementation det
Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem is that when people design interfaces they don't (and
> cannot) know all the situations in which the code is going to be used in
> the future. Clearly separating the published interface from the
> implementation details is a good thing, but
"Isaac Rodriguez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The fact that I had
>> to resort to this trick is a big indication of course that genuinely
>> private members (as opposed to a 'keep off' naming convention) are a bad
>> idea in general.
>
>
> The fact that you had to resort to this trick is a big
> The fact that I had
> to resort to this trick is a big indication of course that genuinely
> private members (as opposed to a 'keep off' naming convention) are a bad
> idea in general.
The fact that you had to resort to this trick is a big indication that
the library you were using is bad desi
"Dan Bishop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a job as a C++ programmer and once tried this trick in order to
> get at a private member function I needed. Didn't work: Apparently, VC
> ++ includes the access level in its name mangling, so you get linker
> errors.
>
I don't have a copy of VC t
"7stud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Really, it does work (probably). There are other ways to get at private
>> members in C++ but this is the easiest.
>
> I can also access private methods of a class if my sister backspaces
> over "private" and types "public" instead.
>
> In your example, no p
On Apr 12, 2:02 pm, Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "7stud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 5:04 am, Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> "7stud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Apr 12, 2:47 am, "Jorgen Bodde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> Is it possible to cal
On Apr 12, 3:02 pm, Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "7stud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 5:04 am, Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> "7stud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Apr 12, 2:47 am, "Jorgen Bodde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> Is it possible to cal
"7stud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 5:04 am, Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "7stud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Apr 12, 2:47 am, "Jorgen Bodde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Is it possible to call a private base method? I come from a C++
>> >> background, and I li
On Apr 12, 5:04 am, Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "7stud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 2:47 am, "Jorgen Bodde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Is it possible to call a private base method? I come from a C++
> >> background, and I liked this construction as my base class has
Le jeudi 12 avril 2007 10:47, Jorgen Bodde a écrit :
> I thought I understood
> how super() worked, but with 'private' members it does not seem to
> work.
I would add to what is already said, that you should just forget the
private -public - protected concepts in Python.
There is no access cont
"7stud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2:47 am, "Jorgen Bodde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is it possible to call a private base method? I come from a C++
>> background, and I liked this construction as my base class has helper
>> methods so that I do not have to duplicate code.
>>
>
On Apr 12, 2:47 am, "Jorgen Bodde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it possible to call a private base method? I come from a C++
> background, and I liked this construction as my base class has helper
> methods so that I do not have to duplicate code.
>
I'd like to see some C++ code that does that
En Thu, 12 Apr 2007 05:47:57 -0300, Jorgen Bodde
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Now that I am really diving into Python, I encounter a lot of things
> that us newbies find difficult to get right. I thought I understood
> how super() worked, but with 'private' members it does not seem to
> work.
"Jorgen Bodde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi All,
>
> Now that I am really diving into Python, I encounter a lot of things
> that us newbies find difficult to get right. I thought I understood
> how super() worked, but with 'private' members it does not se
Hi All,
Now that I am really diving into Python, I encounter a lot of things
that us newbies find difficult to get right. I thought I understood
how super() worked, but with 'private' members it does not seem to
work. For example;
>>> class A(object):
... def __baseMethod(self):
...
23 matches
Mail list logo
