private-members

I came across the following "strange" feature today - if you have a reference to an object from the class A in the body of the class A you can access the private fields of this object - i.e: public class Foo{ private int bar; private Foo foo; public void f() { if(foo.bar == bar) // foo.bar is visible here?! { // } } } Anyone has a good explanation about this? Access modifiers work at the class level, not at the instance level: all code in the same class can access private members of all instances of the class. Nothing particularly strange about it. It is intended to be this way. Citing the

class A { private def sayHello() { println "Anish" } } def a_obj = new A() a_obj.sayHello() output : Anish Is there any way to protect sayHello() in groovy or am I missing something? Andrey Adamovich There is defect on that in Groovy issue tracking system and that defect is still open. tim_yates Searching for [groovy] private reveals: groovy call private method in Java super class What does 'private' mean in Groovy? How to define private getter method in Groovy Bean? It's not clear if it is a bug or by design, but it is going to get looked at again in Groovy 2.0 Jason You can use closures to

I need to access the private variables from the following class listing (Species.java) in order to use them in the KlingonOx.java class. The purpose of the KlingonOx.java class is to determine after how many years the population of the Elephant species will be larger than the population of the Klingon Ox species. Here is the Species.java class: import java.util.Scanner; public class Species { private String name; private int population; private double growthRate; public void readInput() { Scanner keyboard = new Scanner(System.in); System.out.println("What is the species' name?"); name =

I've started learning Objective-C a few weeks ago and I still don't understand how to manage the encapsulation of a class correctly. What is the best way to declare a private member variable in a class? It seems that setting the right getter/setter for your member variable with "@property" is the right way to go, more than just declaring it "@private" in the interface. But it seems to me that this still gives other classes an access to these variables. Even if you declare the property "readonly", an outside class can access the reference to the member variable and modify it! So I'm guessing

We can all agree on public variables being bad for encapsulation and all that. However, I noticed a lot of code that does this type of stuff: class foo { private: int integer_; string someString_; // other variables public: int& integer() { return integer_; } string& someString() { return someString_; } // other "functions" } int main() { foo f; f.integer() = 10; f.someString() = "something"; return 0; } I have seen this being used in many places and I don't get why. Basically it returns a reference to the data and thus exposes it directly to the outside. So encapsulation is not really

First, I know this question has been asked several times before and that in the end, it is mostly a matter of personal preference, but reading all the threads about the subject, some things are not clear to me. Basically, something that most people agree with at least is that public member should be PascalCased while private members should be lowerCamelCased. The matter that usually brings debate is whether or not to prefix the private members by an underscore, or anything else. Prefixing violates several StyleCop rules (which can obviously be turned off though) The rationale to not prefixing

class TestClass { private string _privateString = "hello"; void ChangeData() { TestClass otherTestClass = new TestClass(); otherTestClass._privateString = "world"; } } This code compiles in C# and the equivalent works in PHP, but can someone explain the reason why otherTestClass._privateString can be changed here ? I would have thought an instance of a class should not be able to change a private member variable under any circumstances, and that trying to access otherTestClass._privateString would give an 'inaccessible due to protection level' error. This is not the case though, so why does

class TestClass { private string _privateString = "hello"; void ChangeData() { TestClass otherTestClass = new TestClass(); otherTestClass._privateString = "world"; } } This code compiles in C# and the equivalent works in PHP, but can someone explain the reason why otherTestClass._privateString can be changed here ? I would have thought an instance of a class should not be able to change a private member variable under any circumstances, and that trying to access otherTestClass._privateString would give an 'inaccessible due to protection level' error. This is not the case though, so why does