Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!jarthur!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Default class members
Message-ID: <54363@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 30 Apr 90 17:34:11 GMT
References: <6917@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 11

In article <6917@odin.corp.sgi.com> shap@sgi.com writes:
>It's been my experience that is is almost always wrong for a member to
>be private.  Very few members of a class should in practive be private
>rather than protected, and when they should be, it probably should be as
>a specific consequence of programmer statement.

This contradicts my experience.  I'd claim that using "protected" is
the moral equivalent to declaring your children "friends."  Isn't this
just another statement that inheritence is more important than 
encapsulation?  --In which case, I disagree, I believe encapsulation
is the more important property.