Anonymous user
Talk:Break OO privacy: Difference between revisions
What is needed to get this out of draft?
(more valid uses) |
(What is needed to get this out of draft?) |
||
Line 49:
==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]]) 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)
| |||