Does IoC always break encapsulation, and therefore OOP? No, these are hierarchically related concerns. Encapsulation is one of the most misunderstood concepts in OOP, but I think the relationship is best described via Abstract Data Types (ADTs). Essentially, an ADT is a general description of data and associated behaviour. This description is abstract; it omits … Read more
You would have to use internal for that as Swift doesn’t offer a protected keyword (unlike many other programming languages). internal is the only access modifier between fileprivate and public: Internal access enables entities to be used within any source file from their defining module, but not in any source file outside of that module. … Read more
Set and Get methods are a pattern of data encapsulation. Instead of accessing class member variables directly, you define get methods to access these variables, and set methods to modify them. By encapsulating them in this manner, you have control over the public interface, should you need to change the inner workings of the class … Read more
For the original C++03 std::pair, functions to access the members would serve no useful purpose. As of C++11 and later (we’re now at C++17, with C++20 coming up fast) std::pair is a special case of std::tuple, where std::tuple can have any number of items. As such it makes sense to have a parameterized getter, since … Read more
The default accessibility for a type is internal, but the default accesibility of that type’s members depends on the type. Generally speaking, members of a class are private by default, where as members of a struct are public by default. This varies by language; default struct access modifiers for C++ are public, where as for … Read more
Instead of creating a brand new type, you can use Ref::map (since Rust 1.8). This has the same result as Levans’ existing answer: use std::cell::Ref; impl Foo { pub fn get_items(&self) -> Ref<‘_, Vec<i32>> { Ref::map(self.interior.borrow(), |mi| &mi.vec) } } You can also use new features like impl Trait to hide the Ref from the … Read more
Abstraction has to do with separating interface from implementation. (We don’t care what it is, we care that it works a certain way.) Encapsulation has to do with disallowing access to or knowledge of internal structures of an implementation. (We don’t care or need to see how it works, only that it does.) Some people … Read more
Lot of good answers, but maybe one more from a self-taught Java programmer as I went through all that by myself with a lot of pain 😉 Think about a Class as something seen from the outside, not as something you see internally. If you look at a Class from the outside, what you see? … Read more
More generally encapsulation refers simply to bundling the data (e.g. of an object) with the operations on that data. So you have a class encapsulating data – fields – along with the methods for manipulating that data. But encapsulation is also sometimes used in the same way as your answer, and indeed, one of the … Read more
Is there a compelling reason for this requirement? That’s the wrong question to ask. The question asked by the language design team when we were designing this feature was: Is there a compelling reason to allow extension methods to be declared in nested static types? Since extension methods were designed to make LINQ work, and … Read more