Talk:Break OO privacy: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:I put an example of one possible interpretation of the task requirements out there. Is that what this task is about? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 00:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
:I put an example of one possible interpretation of the task requirements out there. Is that what this task is about? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 00:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
When I saw the task title before reading the details, I assumed it was about accessing “private” fields of an object ''other than'' by the explicit code of the object (i.e. the Tcl example is appropriate, the C# and Java ones are not). —[[User:Kevin Reid|Kevin Reid]] 00:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 00:54, 9 August 2011
Should this task remain?
Is this a correct subject for RC? Will it reflect badly on RC? Will it attract the wrong kind of audience to RC? --Paddy3118 03:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think that if it is something that some languages can achieve then the task should remain. Not every idea is necessarily good practice in all languages, but if it is achievable, then it can still be demonstrated for comparative purposes. Markhobley 08:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Context?
What is the context for this task?
In other words, are we talking about using a debugger? or are we talking about implementing an inheritance hierarchy? Or are we talking about code analysis? Or.... ? --Rdm 17:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- I put an example of one possible interpretation of the task requirements out there. Is that what this task is about? --Rdm 00:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
When I saw the task title before reading the details, I assumed it was about accessing “private” fields of an object other than by the explicit code of the object (i.e. the Tcl example is appropriate, the C# and Java ones are not). —Kevin Reid 00:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)