From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,e0a59694a441eb7b
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e0a59694a441eb7b
X-Google-Thread: fac41,e0a59694a441eb7b
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,e0a59694a441eb7b
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,gid103376,gidfac41,gid1108a1,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-24 19:37:24 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nwrdny01.gnilink.net.POSTED!0e8a908a!not-for-mail
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object
Subject: Re: OOP Language for OS Development
References: <95db0572.0404142153.431fd058@posting.google.com>
 <566e2bfb.0404181753.2844342f@posting.google.com>
 <ytOgc.39006$zm5.17464@nntpserver.swip.net>
 <c67sgr$2e0$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> <4088D574.2020503@tele2.fr>
 <c6ap5j$1nh$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk> <c6bfs3$ed7$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <1082738747.300309@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <d853834.0404231610.240e5b52@posting.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <d853834.0404231610.240e5b52@posting.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <DvFic.16999$eK3.16136@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 02:37:23 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.237.200.148
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: nwrdny01.gnilink.net 1082860643 68.237.200.148 (Sat,
 24 Apr 2004 22:37:23 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:37:23 EDT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.c++:31476 comp.lang.ada:7464
 comp.lang.eiffel:748 comp.object:11128
Date: 2004-04-25T02:37:23+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Steven Wurster wrote:
> Explain why.  Don't just say it's 'hideous' without giving rationale.

If I see code which says 'f(1) + f(2)' I would be very surprised to
hear that the compiler was tossing out the f(2) and just reusing the
f(1). It's not that you can't do the same thing in C++ using statics,
but having it as a language feature just strikes me as weird. At least
Ada does it right, by only eliding calls with the same arguments for
Pure methods.

> Why?  You need to provide your reason for your opinion.  Selective
> exporting is way ahead of the public/protected/private of C++ and
> Java.

It's only ahead if you think that such hiding is valuable and necessary.
I think some people have made a religion of it, and they need to stop
thinking of their code as some sacred virgin who must be defended from
the impure advances of everyone else's code, and just get the work done.
The world isn't going to end if someone gets to fiddle around with the
private bits.