[1241] in Coldmud discussion meeting

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

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sun Mar 2 16:34:24 1997 )

Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 13:29:32 -0800
To: "Jeff T. Polczynski" <jefftp@purdue.edu>, "COLD" <coldstuff@cold.org>
From: Jeff Kesselman <jeffk@tenetwork.com>

At 05:18 PM 3/1/97 -0500, Jeff T. Polczynski wrote:
>>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.

Its handy.
What I do is inherit init routiens that do the same thing at obejct init,
so I dont feel strongly abotu it, now thatI understand it.

JK

>
>