Re: C++ Envy

[dobrien@seas.gwu.edu (David O'Brien)]

In article <3fui32$q6g@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> you wrote:
: David O'Brien says

:: "I'd just go change the class definition if is was pissing me off that much."

: Two comments. First this kind of attitude is of course anathema in a well
: run environment. Second, it makes me think David doesn't understand what
: a CM system does -- I guess a CM system which made it impossible to mess
: around because he felt pissed off would really get him mad!

Ok, I have been mis-understood.  Let me set this up.

A team of us are working on a project.  We have a CM tool.  Assume the
usual C/C++ tools like make.  Ok, since the Makefile is so important to
producing our program, it is under CM just like all the rest of our
source code and headers.  Like any project that is concerned with CM,
there are "official" builds built by a tech lead, QA, CM, who ever.  The
Makefile and source code used for these builds come from the CM tool.
(Correct me if this isn't setup correctly...)

Now, Jim-Bob has written a class and private/protected some member
function or attribute I want to access directly.  So I decide to use the
wrapper header suggested, to get around the type protection.

How am I going to compile the beast now?  I have to edit the Makefile so
that my wrapper header can be added as a dependency to *my* module.  (Or,
I use scandeps/etc. to automaticly look at the includes and do this
for me.)

After all this, I am happy with my module.  Time to check it back into
CM.  This must include my wrapper header, or else the program won't be
compilable by anyone else (especially the "official" person).  BINGO,
what do you have???  Traceability!  You know who the fool was, and when
the change occurred.  The next CM report will tell all.

Someone earlier said that you could remove the protections from Ada by
just editing the source file.  You said that CM protected this from
happening.  How is that different for C ???

:   "From the way you wrote, I'd say you have some hostility toward C++
:   programmers"

: No, just hostility to programmers who feel they can break the rules whenever
: they get pissed off :-)

btw, I didn't say *I* wanted to mess around.  I said that rather than
play all these _games_ to get around the protection, I'd just head
straight to the source and do it in a [slightly] more legitimized way.
My being "pissed off" applies to how ridiculous this thread has become
with "oh, this is _terrible_".

-- David O'Brien	(dobrien@seas.gwu.edu)