[1239] in Coldmud discussion meeting

Re: [COLD] public/private/protected object variables

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sat Mar 1 17:41:44 1997 )

Date: Sat, 1 Mar 97 17:18:28 -0500
From: "Jeff T. Polczynski" <jefftp@purdue.edu>
To: "COLD" <coldstuff@cold.org>

>On Sat, 1 Mar 1997, Jeff Kesselman wrote:
>> I guess I'ld have to say I think its a bad ideas. I think its dilutes the
>> strengths of COldC-- oen of which is that it breaks your sloppy C++ habits
>> and FORCES yo uto learn how to write really good object orinted code.
>But this isn't breaking the encapsulation--it is simply changing the
>default value when a specific instance is not defined.  The variable still

[...]

>instance in the ancestor tree)--and only change what you care about.

This sounds like MOO's standard operation for decendants. Which I've 
really missed in ColdX. Variables default to the value defined above them 
in the public instance... I think the private, protected and public words 
sound strange when used in this respect, but I would find these features 
make more commonsense than the current system where you need to define 
values over and over again, which is bad programming in my mind.