On Wednesday, 26 February 2025 at 02:37:05 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 February 2025 at 20:23:20 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>> On Monday, 3 February 2025 at 18:44:03 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>>
>> Which then you have to move other things that rely on accessing the class private variables/functions.
>>
>>
>> - Alex
>
> You make those private things package.

You could also make private things public as well. Which at that point I don't think that what the programmer meant nor want.


- Alex

On Monday, 3 March 2025 at 09:08:03 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 February 2025 at 20:23:20 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>> On Monday, 3 February 2025 at 18:44:03 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 27 April 2024 at 09:25:13 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
>>>> This is an alternative to "private(this)".
>>>>
>>>> I think it would be much more interesting if it was possible to separate read and write permissions instead.
>>>> (The syntax is just an example, not that important, just for illustration purposes.)
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> One can always move the class to another module.
>>
>> Which then you have to move other things that rely on accessing the class private variables/functions.
>>
>>
>> - Alex
>
> Yes, which I'll argue is a good thing since it'll force you to think about how to best organise the code.

Code organization and encapsulation are orthogonal to each other. Intent matters more.