private

I've recently been working with someone else's code and I realized that this individual has a very different philosophy regarding private variables and method parameters than I do. I generally feel that private variables should only be used in a case when: The variable needs to be stored for recall later. The data stored in the variable is used globally in the class. When the variable needs to be globally manipulated (something decidedly different from the need to read the variable by every class method). When it will make programming substantially easier. (Admittedly vague, but one has to be

I've learn C++ for some time, however there is always this question which puzzles me (for years). In school, our lecturers like to declare class variables as private. In order to access it, we have to declare an accessor to access it. Sometimes we even have to make the different classes become "friends" into order to access its elements. My question is: Why make it so troublesome? What is the true rationale behind all the private and protected stuff when we can just make our life as a programmer easier by using public for everything? I was thinking, once the code gets compiled, the end user

I have a C# application, and to organize its files I have some DLL's in a folder called "Data". I want the EXE to check this folder for the DLL's just like how it checks its current directory. If I created a App.Config with this information: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> <configuration> <runtime> <assemblyBinding xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1"> <probing privatePath="Data" /> </assemblyBinding> </runtime> </configuration> It works without a problem. I do not want to have an App.Config. Is there a way to set the probing path without using an app.config? You can do it for new

g++ is denying me access to a type, just because it happens to be a private grand-father. Does this make sense? struct A {}; struct B : private A {}; struct C : B { void foo(A const& a) {} }; Compiling this yields: 1:10: error: ‘struct A A::A’ is inaccessible 6:12: error: within this context My point is: I never wanted to access A as an ancestor. In fact, if A is a private ancestor of B , shouldn't this be completely invisible to anybody but B (i.e. C )? Of course, I could use protected inheritance but in my case it doesn't really make sense. This is due to the injected class name from A

Possible? Can you change the access of anything to anything else? No, you can hide a public member with a private method in a subclass, but you cannot override a public member with a private one in a subclass. And, in actually, it's not just a public/private thing, this applies to narrowing the access in general. Revised : By hiding with a more restrictive access - in this case private access - you will still see the base class member from a base-class or sub-class reference, but it would defer to the new method when available from the new access level. So in general, when you hide, the hide

I was recently made aware of meteor private subdirectories. According to the docs: "The private subdirectory is the place for any files that should be accessible to server code but not served to the client, like private data files." I am a newbie at web development in general, so my question is what is the advantage of having these files within the private subdirectory vs. just in the server subdirectory itself? Is the server subdirectory not private - e.g. I have some email templates defined and my email login information is set up in a startup function in the server subdirectory, are these