encapsulation

I'd like to write a type alias to shorten, nice and encapsulated Scala code. Suppose I got some collection which has the property of being a list of maps, the value of which are tuples. My type would write something like List[Map[Int, (String, String)]] , or anything more generic as my application allows it. I could imagine having a supertype asking for a Seq[MapLike[Int, Any]] or whatever floats my boat, with concrete subclasses being more specific. I'd then want to write an alias for this long type. class ConcreteClass { type DataType = List[Map[Int, (String, String)]] ... } I would then

I was trying out the validity of private access specifier in C++. Here goes: Interface: // class_A.h class A { public: void printX(); private: void actualPrintX(); int x; }; Implementation: // class_A.cpp void A::printX() { actualPrintX(); } void A::actualPrintX() { std::cout << x: } I built this in to a static library (.a/.lib). We now have a class_A.h and classA.a (or classA.lib) pair. I edited class_A.h and removed the private: from it. Now in another classTester.cpp: #include "class_A.h" // the newly edited header int main() { A a; a.x = 12; // both G++ and VC++ allowed this! a.printX(); /

I was researching on getters/setters , and the general idea is that they are evil and should be avoided. You should let the object do the work, and produce the result. Reading Material: Why getter and setter methods are evil Are getters and setters poor design? Contradictory advice seen Why use getters and setters? With all that in mind, suppose I have a Book class that looked like this: publc final Book{ private final String title; private final List<Authors> listofAuthors; private final int numberofpages; //constructor not included in example. //getters for title, listofAuthors, and

Closed . This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers. Learn more . Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post . Closed 5 years ago . I am completing Sun/Oracle's Trail ( http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/TOC.html ) and it keeps reiterating the importance of encapsulation. How important, really, is encapsulation? I mean, if I may need to access the value of a given class field, why would I do so through a method when I could just access the field directly? Since the field would be

People say inheritance breaks encapsulation, which i agree with. They say delegation is better- although the modifiers in delegation can also be public/protected. So is the real reason why inheritance breaks encapsulation because of the "knock-on" effect of the public/protected modifiers from the super class being exposed to any new classes which extend the current subclass? Yes. Since it gives the derived class access to members of the base class (depending on what language and which kind of inheritance) it is said that it breaks encapsulation. IMHO this is only if you are clinging to

Would anyone be able to explain to me what data encapsulation in Objective-C is? I've been told that this an important concept of Objective-C but I don't see why... Explain it to me as if I was 5 and then as if I was 25.... Thanks for your time, ~Daniel From http://mobile.tutsplus.com/tutorials/iphone/learn-objective-c-2/ : What we mean by data encapsulation is that data is contained (so to speak) by methods meaning to access it we need to use methods. Some of you who have programmed in other languages and havenʼt heard of data encapsulation may be wondering why we do things this way. The