lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


On Monday 17 January 2005 17:13, Jay Carlson wrote:
> better with a different quoted qualifier, like "strict"
"strict" was the intention, which should imply
"pedantic" and to some extend also "minimalist",
as far as access to objects is concerned :)

> I can probably find or write a justification of why this makes sense
hmmm ... maybe life isn't as simple as pure OO-theory claims

To put it in a different light:
Having a notion of strictly private is essential for OO,
while differentiating between more or less public is not,
and is not an OO-specific issue at all.
IMHO it is important to regard protected and friends
essentially as variations of public rather than of private,
so the question is not how to provide access to private parts,
but how to control access to semi-public parts, isn't it?

There are different ways of packaging for access control,
and treating one classes offspring as a package 
for that matter is just one of them
-- which obviously makes sense, as it's a pretty common case,
but then also has it's well known drawbacks and misconceptions.

In Lua we have much more versatile ways of access control,
including e.g. nice and efficient read-only members,
and there's no need to have a direct lookalike of "protected",
"friend", "pure virtual base" or whatever any OO language
came up with in order to claim any level of OO-ishness.