Talk:Break OO privacy: Difference between revisions

context?
(context?)
Line 19:
::::Sorry, I've been away. Back now! <br>The intent was to show ways to circumvent such protection when, for example, you are given a compiled class and wish to force access to a protected member. The reason for the task is that Python - a language that has intentionally weak protection - relying instead on a "we're all consenting adults" approach, mentions that where other languages have a culture of using protected members, that there usually exists methods to get around this. I did want to get them in one place; but I also realise that it might undermine those languages that rely more on the obscurity of their protection hacking methods so I remain quite willing to junk the whole page if the community thinks it wise. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 19:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
::::: I'd vote that the task stay. Of course it should have warnings about the practice being frowned upon, running with scissors, playing with live ammunition, that sort of thing. The task need not even have a specific context. I would like to see some elaboration in the task description about possible uses of value. As I could see some languages may have different reasons for this kind of thing, it would also be appropriate to ask each language for some description of why this might be needed. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 02:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 
::::: i'd actually like to use this task to demonstrate that in languages that claim to have protection this protection can be circumvented. of course even nicer would be if we could get proofs for languages where it can't be circumvented. but i guess that may be hard.--[[User:EMBee|eMBee]] 07:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Anonymous user