Talk:Hall of fame
From CSSEMediaWiki
(Difference between revisions)
m (username) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:Because information hiding is the foundation to reuse if someone using your class needs to know it's internal workings not just the interface then the class does not have [[Behavioral_completeness|behavioural completeness]]. --[[User:AlexGee|AlexGee]] 03:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | :Because information hiding is the foundation to reuse if someone using your class needs to know it's internal workings not just the interface then the class does not have [[Behavioral_completeness|behavioural completeness]]. --[[User:AlexGee|AlexGee]] 03:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | :Of course you can always break the laws, even the inviolable ones. You can use gotos, but it is ''considered harmful''. I think the same applies to information hiding: you can make all your attributes public, but I'd consider that harmful too. Maybe it's clearer when you replace 'inviolable' with 'not justifiable'? | + | :Of course you can always break the laws, even the inviolable ones. You can use gotos, but it is ''considered harmful''. I think the same applies to information hiding: you can make all your attributes public, but I'd consider that harmful too. Maybe it's clearer when you replace 'inviolable' with 'not justifiable'? --[[User:TobiW|TobiW]] |
Revision as of 04:49, 24 July 2009
What is the rationale of Information hiding being an inviolable law? Why can there NEVER be a case when this can be broken? --Matthew Harward 09:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oooo that's a really interesting question. How important is info hiding anyway? What was it about info hiding that led to its nomination as inviolable? --Wal 00:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because information hiding is the foundation to reuse if someone using your class needs to know it's internal workings not just the interface then the class does not have behavioural completeness. --AlexGee 03:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Of course you can always break the laws, even the inviolable ones. You can use gotos, but it is considered harmful. I think the same applies to information hiding: you can make all your attributes public, but I'd consider that harmful too. Maybe it's clearer when you replace 'inviolable' with 'not justifiable'? --TobiW
