From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2003-09-17T18:34:29+09:00
Subject: Re: performance and style advice requested


"Hal Fulton" <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3F67C9CA.4050003@hypermetrics.com...
> Bjarne Stroustrup wrote:
> > Alex Martelli <aleaxit@yahoo.com>
> >
> >
> >>Or Python -- no "access control" whatsoever, just *advisory*
indications
> >>of what's meant to be "published" and what's meant to be for internal
use
> >>only.  Just the time saved not having to decide what's private,
public,
> >>or protected (Stroustrup regrets having introduced the complication of
> >>that third intermediate classifier -- see his book "Design and
Evolution
> >>of the C++ programming language") is by itself a huge performance
boost.
> >>
> >
> >
> > If you have actually read D&E, you'd know that I disagree with your
> > statement. Even if you want to quote me in support of something I
> > disagree with, you could try to quote accurately. Your statement of my
> > position on "protected" is highly inaccurate.
>
> For the benefit of those of us who don't own that book (though I
> do own at least one other) -- can you tell us what in fact your
> position is on "protected"?

While eagerly awayting clarification from Bjarne, I googled a bit and this
is what found:
http://www.c-view.org/tech/pattern/cpptips/prot_data

His main concern is about protected data making it all too easy to mess
things up, whereas he favours protected methods.

Regards

    robert