bs@alice.UUCP (Bjarne Stroustrup) (08/28/88)
In article <COOPER.88Aug26111736@gecrux.steinmetz.ge.com>, cooper@kbsvax.UUCP (Clark Cooper) writes: > > I've noticed in several examples appearing over the network the use > of "private:" in class declarations. While the use seems clear, "private" > is not listed as a keyword or otherwise documented in Stroustrup. Where is > its use documented (at least with respect to GNU C++). Is it just ornamental? > Can we do anything with it that we can't do without it? > My paper ``The Evolution of C++: 1985-1987'' that I presented at the USENIX C++ ``workshop'' in Santa Fe describes all extensions to C++ in the timespan mentioned and documents a few points that are not extensions but where the documentation had left doubts about the intent. ``private:'' was introduced to support people that wanted more freedom in laying out their code, especially people who wanted the public part to come first. It is a ``cosmetic'' feature.
dtw@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Duane Williams) (08/28/88)
In <8138@alice.UUCP>, Bjarne Stroustrup, writes: | ``private:'' was introduced to support people that wanted more | freedom in laying out their code, especially people who wanted | the public part to come first. It is a ``cosmetic'' feature. Even if only "cosmetic," it is a nice feature. Even though I routinely put private stuff first, I still write class ... { private: ... public: ... }; Why? Because this makes the code much more intelligible, esp. to people who are not C++ wizards. Duane -- uucp: ...!seismo!cmucspt!me.ri.cmu.edu!dtw arpa: dtw@cs.cmu.edu