Talk:Break OO privacy: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Talk:Break OO privacy (view source)

Revision as of 07:26, 28 January 2013

1,566 bytes added , 11 years ago

→‎What is needed to get this out of draft?: Great changes.

Anonymous user

rosettacode>Paddy3118

Revision as of 16:51, 27 December 2011 (view source) rosettacode>Dgamey (more valid uses) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 07:26, 28 January 2013 (view source) rosettacode>Paddy3118 (→‎What is needed to get this out of draft?: Great changes.)
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 48: ==Valid Uses?== While generally agreed that this is bad form, the discussions above identified things like debuggers and diagnostic tools as possibly valid uses. Also, it seems to me that these techniques could be used in combination with 'monkey patching' (see [[~~Add_a_variable_to_a_class_instance_at_runtime~~Add a variable to a class instance at runtime]]) and other similar kinds of activities. Okay, this gets a bit out on the edge of valid but still. --[[User:Dgamey\|Dgamey]] 16:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC) == What is needed to get this out of draft? == There's been a healthy discussion on this and it seems to have settled down. So the next question is what needs to be done? Just reviewing the discussions above, I think it comes down to some additions to the task description and possibly marking some of the tasks for clarification due to task changes? For the description, I'm thinking that statements along the lines of the following would help: * On context - a note that this is a proof of concept example that could be used in things like debuggers, diagnostic tools, code analyzers, extended inheritance frameworks * On approach - clarify that it is within the context of the language and isn't intended to get into low level hacking from another language or via the O/S (and to see the discuss page on this as a grey area) * Possibly some linking to other tasks that might work with these techniques in some of the example contexts * Elaborate on the un-idiomatic usage warning about dangers etc. Thoughts anyone? --[[User:Dgamey\|Dgamey]] 18:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC) : Seems reasonable to me. The degree to which low-level hacking is required will probably vary by language though, and there's probably a need to cross-link to some tasks on introspection. –[[User:Dkf\|Donal Fellows]] 18:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC) I agree with TimToady's updates and his move out of draft. I especially liked this bit: :'' if your language intentionally maintains a double-standard for OO privacy ...'' --[[User:Paddy3118\|Paddy3118]] 07:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)<br>:-)