Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!uunet!lupine!rfg
From: rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Separate Decl of Private Member Fcn
Message-ID: <1194@lupine.NCD.COM>
Date: 15 Aug 90 06:46:04 GMT
References: <259400001@inmet> <259400002@inmet>
Organization: Network Computing Devices, Inc., Mt. View, CA
Lines: 31

In article <259400002@inmet< stt@inmet.inmet.com writes:
<
<Re: Separate Decl of Private Member Fcn
<
<The obvious solution to the concerns about allowing
<member functions to be added after the end of the class
<declaration is to require that they be private and static.
<This makes them visible only to the other member functions,
<and prevents "hijacking."
<
<I have used Ada for ten years and the ability to add private functions
<with visibility to private data, without disturbing the
<declaration of a type is essential to the enhancement
<and sane maintenance of a large system.
<
<After all, that is why "static" functions were added to the
<original C.  It would be a shame if private static member functions in C++
<couldn't have the same limited per-file visibility they have in C.

I generally agree with Tucker's comments, except that I believe that what
he probably meant to say was that it should be allowable to add private
*non-virtual* functions after the end of a class.

I don't see how the static-ness of a member function should be an issue when
it comes to adding member functions after the end of the class.

-- 

// Ron Guilmette  -  C++ Entomologist
// Internet: rfg@ncd.com      uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg
// Motto:  If it sticks, force it.  If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.