On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote: > >> > I'd also like us to not use member privatization in our classes, but >> > that's not in the patch, but if we could agree on that it would be nice. > >> Member privatization is quite natural. What specifically do you not like >> about the practice? > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00302.html > > That was conditional on "when we need to jump through hoops", but for > constistency it'd make sense to avoid it everywhere. > (I know that Ian agreed to that mail, but somehow the mailing list > archives don't have that!?)
I accidentally sent the e-mail in HTML mode, and it bounced. I didn't think it was important enough to resend. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that we should never use private members, just that I think it's better to use public members than to contort the code to force them to be private. In any case I do think that any discussion of this area should be with regard to suggested changes to the coding conventions at http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html . Those conventions do say "Prefer to make data members private" and "When structs and/or classes have member functions, prefer to name data members with a trailing underscore." Ian
