Timeline for In OOP, isn't the 'protected' keyword required?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 9, 2019 at 6:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSoftEng/status/1203917301113925632 | ||
| Dec 4, 2019 at 16:36 | comment | added | Alexander | There's an official Swift blog post about this: developer.apple.com/swift/blog/?id=11 | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 16:35 | answer | added | Alexander | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 4, 2019 at 14:54 | comment | added | Sulthan |
Regarding Swift, it has internal for module access, fileprivate and private for file level access. The combination replaces protected pretty well. Java doesn't have fileprivate but it's not any less OOP than Swift.
|
|
| S Dec 4, 2019 at 1:40 | history | suggested | dandan78 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
improved grammar
|
| Dec 3, 2019 at 21:45 | comment | added | Zev Spitz |
@WillemVanOnsem That's true for public and private, but protected -- while it is an access modifier -- has no meaning without inheritance.
|
|
| Dec 3, 2019 at 18:36 | comment | added | willeM_ Van Onsem | Some languages even do not have access control at all... Access control is orthogonal to the programming paradigm. | |
| Dec 3, 2019 at 17:16 | comment | added | GammaGames | Varying amounts of underscores are the best way to indicate private-ness. | |
| Dec 3, 2019 at 14:38 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 4, 2019 at 1:40 | |||||
| Dec 3, 2019 at 11:54 | comment | added | UKMonkey | Python doesn't have private or protected. I feel that this example is something that shouldn't be forgotten from your list. | |
| Dec 3, 2019 at 8:56 | answer | added | user470365 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 20:36 | comment | added | Polygnome | Access control* modifiers are not needed for OOP at all, they solve a different, yet related, set of problems. | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 19:32 | history | edited | Dan Wilson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
spelling and readability
|
| Dec 2, 2019 at 18:50 | comment | added | davidbak |
If you look in a book on the theory of Object-Oriented Programming, e.g., A Theory Of Objects (Abadi, Cardelli) you will not find any mention of protected. Nor private or public.. They're just not part of object-oriented programming. They're part of software engineering, added to O-O programming languages so that the compiler can help the programmer achieve "proper" O-O design practices.
|
|
| Dec 2, 2019 at 18:23 | answer | added | Jean-Baptiste Yunès | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 15:00 | comment | added | user28434 |
@LieRyan, original OOP languages were designed with all data being private and all methods being public.
|
|
| Dec 2, 2019 at 14:12 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Dec 2, 2019 at 13:12 | answer | added | Flater | timeline score: 47 | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 10:36 | comment | added | Lie Ryan | OOP doesn't need private/public either. Many OOP languages works perfectly fine without public/private access modifiers. | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 9:49 | answer | added | Martin Maat | timeline score: 8 | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 9:28 | answer | added | Hans-Martin Mosner | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 8:45 | history | edited | Christophe | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Dec 2, 2019 at 7:58 | answer | added | Christophe | timeline score: 38 | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 7:54 | answer | added | gnasher729 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 7:33 | history | edited | Christophe |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 2, 2019 at 6:05 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 9, 2019 at 3:05 | |||||
| Dec 2, 2019 at 1:52 | comment | added | Robert Harvey |
No, protected is not required. You said it yourself: it is a "convenience."
|
|
| Dec 2, 2019 at 1:15 | answer | added | paul23 | timeline score: 9 | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 0:25 | review | First posts | |||
| Dec 16, 2019 at 0:25 | |||||
| Dec 2, 2019 at 0:21 | history | asked | ShutUpILoveYou | CC BY-SA 4.0 |