Talk:Break OO privacy: Difference between revisions

m
(→‎Context?: Not the debugger.)
Line 17:
::: I modified the task description to reflect what I think was the intent of the task. (<s>Mwn3d</s>Paddy, are my modifications congruent with what you had in mind?) --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 13:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 
::::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 "wherewe'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)
Anonymous user