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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Design By Contract Date: 1997/08/29 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 268969391 Distribution: world References: <3403940F.4154@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> Organization: PSINet Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-08-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle) writes: > >Isn't that exactly the point? Why should a client be able to see the > >actual structure, aka implementation???? > > If you mean that Eiffel is letting the structure leak out by > providing access to data members, then that's not true. The No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm not commenting about the Eiffel approach at all (which in any event has nothing much to offer over the Ada approach here anyway - beyond certain personal preferences that is). > So in conclusion, no, revealing the data members in this > way does not break encapsulation. Note, however, that this No one claimed otherwise. > To answer your question, the client may be able to see > the data members, but the client can't possibly *know* This at least touches on my point and IMO, this is problematic. /Jon -- Jon Anthony OMI, Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari