Re: Ada202X: Easy to use "UML private"-like components

[Martin <martin@thedowies.com>]

On Friday, July 12, 2013 7:57:28 AM UTC+1, Simon Wright wrote:
> I would have thought it'd make more sense to provide accessors for the
> public attributes (and not for the others) while keeping the public
> attributes themselves private (protected?), since derived(?) classes
> _should_ be able to see the protected attributes? But, that said, it
> doesn't seem unreasonable to map the model's attribute visibilities to
> accessor visibilities. What else should you do?

Exactly...esp as both attributes & their set/get can each have their own
visibility...and you can see those on any OMD...why would you *not* reflect
them as-is in the code?...

My assumption is that the out-the-box behaviour is lost in the mists of time
but they can't change it without being non-backwards compatible.

I guess it's a little like having to remember "-gnato" ;-)

-- Martin