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
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.bbs-scene.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada202X: Easy to use "UML private"-like components
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 07:57:28 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lyhag0uuxz.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <69246de0-4b33-4d47-b5be-a45e8c911fb0@googlegroups.com>
 <wccwqpnux8n.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <eabcaba2-a5aa-499d-a179-917f5dde79f3@googlegroups.com>
 <lya9luwg0u.fsf@pushface.org>
 <d22ab491-8be7-48e6-9f0c-af89d976619f@googlegroups.com>
 <ly61wiw6c5.fsf@pushface.org>
 <4d7e6232-1e3b-4ad8-b754-16d6e8642006@googlegroups.com>
 <lyli5cvqej.fsf@pushface.org>
 <91927795-6b9d-41d5-b885-2709d96fc1f9@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="c8504a89c76ea11bda6664e6198ae3cd";
 logging-data="25834"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
 posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/zG2CRPWdb9K9wdxNSkoU0quc1pnavQOo="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PEz7wumMrFc1j+UbcXLojt9IBXM=
 sha1:4/UyRZraoJJqiP3kLyZZ2GQCQhg=
X-Original-Bytes: 2201
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:182483
Date: 2013-07-12T07:57:28+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Martin <martin@thedowies.com> writes:

> Yes, but I'd rather go through set/get - direct access to attributes
> is content coupling...that's evil!! :-) and they're useful for
> breakpoints etc to see which call stack is setting a particular
> value...
>
> ...the other big problem, is that what you see on a OMD or CD wrt
> visibilties is not what you get in the code.

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?