3 ms·
I like this idea, except for the fact that the extra parametrer pollutes the method signature and method calls, for something that really should only be a compi
by w0utert 7y ago
I like this idea, except for the fact that the extra parametrer pollutes the method signature and method calls, for something that really should only be a compile-time directive.
I'm actually curious why something like this has never been included as a language feature, it seems trivial to come up with a syntax for fine-grained access control, that is fully backwards-compatible and a true zero-cost abstraction.
Most obvious first shot:
class A
{
private:
void badgedFunction() const friend Device, SomeOtherClass;
};
Did you ever check with the C++ working group if there are any proposals for language extensions for this purpose?
- akling 7y agoYeah, polluting the signatures is a shame. I've only just decided that I enjoy using this pattern so my internal standards committee hadn't progressed to the proposal stage yet. :) Your syntax makes perfect sense to me, and I think it would make a great addition to the language. I wonder what the real working group would say. (I tried quickly googling for something that might sound like an existing proposal but came up empty.)