Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Solve all incapsulation problems in 1 line

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-04 11:30

#define private public

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-04 12:04

just use structs instead of classes. they are by default public.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-04 12:22

>>1
#define private public
#define protected public
#define class struct

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-04 12:55

>>1
incapsulation
EHBT

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-04 14:07

>>4
Unpossible!

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-04 17:21

this is elite

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-05 7:40

There are no ``problems'' with encapsulation. Only with the programmers.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-05 7:41

>>7
all members want to be free

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-05 7:52

>>8
My member is free IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!!!

By which I mean, I have no private clause in any of my classes.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-05 11:52

>>9
I think you mean it is licensed under the GPL Public License.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-05 12:36

>>10
That is fine too.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-05 12:52

template < struct t > struct oh_shit_i_broke_it

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-05 16:04

Excessive encapsulation is the root of all evil.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-05 19:10

What the fuck do you guys have against encapsulation? Don't you know that it's better to define interfaces abstractly rather than concretely, that *what* something does is more important than *how* something does it, so that the implementation can change without users' care?

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-05 19:22

>>14
The problem with encapsulation is that OO faggots tend to want to use at too fine granularity. And since they are all around and your boss will likely be one of them, you'll probably have to endure a lot of baseless nagging if you disagree with them on that.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-05 22:17

>>10
I think you mean it is licensed under the HMA Pubic License.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-05 23:01

Encapsulation is nice if it meets these requirements:
1. No "normal" person will ever want to break it.
2. It protects from common mistakes (a = b instead of a == b, etc.).

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-06 0:06

>>17
... what does encapsulation have to do with assignment/equality semantics?

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-06 2:16

>>15
Oh ok. So it's the age old problem of people abusing their tools out of ignorance.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-06 2:48

var protected = function(object, fn){return fn;}

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-06 2:50

>>20
wait a second. i'm drunk.
IHTmyself

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-06 3:01

the fuck is encapsulation anyway ? i cant do that in haskell ?

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-06 3:09

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-06 3:10

your incapsulation

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-06 8:51

This is all well and good,

But how can I solve my inheritance problems in 1 line?

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-06 8:58

>>25
while(things left to inherit){
   ctrl-c, ctrl-v;
}

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-06 9:37

>>25
"Dear Manager, I think we should use C89. Sincerely, Fred."

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-06 9:40

>>27
C isn't OOP.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-06 9:44

>>25
( ゚ ヮ゚)sepples

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-06 9:52

>>28,29
I lol'd at both

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-06 19:04

>>28
OOP isn't a language.

Name: Anonymous 2010-11-25 6:52

Name: Anonymous 2010-11-27 13:40

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 6:39


Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List