encapsulation

问题 Working with data in Python or R, we often load several packages. In some cases, two packages (e.g. foo and bar ) might each contain some function (e.g. do_stuff ). The way this is managed in Python to prevent ambiguity or surprises is like: from foo import do_stuff from bar import other_function # (does not load/import do_stuff() from bar) In R, all the code I see just imports whole packages with multiple library(package_name) statements. I would think this would lead to very difficult-to

问题 Working with data in Python or R, we often load several packages. In some cases, two packages (e.g. foo and bar ) might each contain some function (e.g. do_stuff ). The way this is managed in Python to prevent ambiguity or surprises is like: from foo import do_stuff from bar import other_function # (does not load/import do_stuff() from bar) In R, all the code I see just imports whole packages with multiple library(package_name) statements. I would think this would lead to very difficult-to

问题 I have a class Bar with a private field containing the reference type Foo . I would like to expose Foo in a public property, but I do not want the consumers of the property to be able to alter Foo ... It should however be alterable internally by Bar , i.e. I can't make the field readonly . So what I would like is: private _Foo; public Foo { get { return readonly _Foo; } } ...which is of course not valid. I could just return a clone of Foo (assumming that it is IClonable ), but this is not

问题 I have a class Bar with a private field containing the reference type Foo . I would like to expose Foo in a public property, but I do not want the consumers of the property to be able to alter Foo ... It should however be alterable internally by Bar , i.e. I can't make the field readonly . So what I would like is: private _Foo; public Foo { get { return readonly _Foo; } } ...which is of course not valid. I could just return a clone of Foo (assumming that it is IClonable ), but this is not

问题 I try to understand a lot of times but I failed to understand this. Encapsulation is the technique of making the fields in a class private and providing access to the fields via public methods. If a field is declared private, it cannot be accessed by anyone outside the class, thereby hiding the fields within the class. How can we change the values of fields through setter methods? How do we prevent accessing the fields directly? What is the real use of encapsulation? 回答1: Assume you have an

问题 After going through SO questions, I learnt that, Encapsulation is about protecting invariants and hiding implementation details. Abstraction has to do with separating interface from implementation . From class room java training, I learnt that, Encapsulation has following advantages, Why encapsulation is your friend? [1] The implementation is independent of the functionality. A programmer who has the documentation of the interface can implement a new version of the module or ADT independently

问题 One of the really nice things about python is the simplicity with which you can name variables that have the same name as the accessor: self.__value = 1 def value(): return self.__value Is there a simple way of providing access to the private members of a class that I wish to subclass? Often I wish to simply work with the raw data objects inside of a class without having to use accessors and mutators all the time. I know this seems to go against the general idea of private and public, but

问题 Would anyone be able to explain to me what data encapsulation in Objective-C is? I've been told that this an important concept of Objective-C but I don't see why... Explain it to me as if I was 5 and then as if I was 25.... Thanks for your time, ~Daniel 回答1: From http://mobile.tutsplus.com/tutorials/iphone/learn-objective-c-2/ : What we mean by data encapsulation is that data is contained (so to speak) by methods meaning to access it we need to use methods. Some of you who have programmed in

问题 I have a class with a container (containing pointer) as a member: MyClass{ private: std::vector<MyObject*> _VecMyObjs; public: const std::vector<MyObject* const> GetVecMyObj(); } Now I try to implement GetVecMyObj(). Here is what I came up with... const vector<MyObject *const> ACI_CALL MyClass::GetVecMyObjs() { const vector<MyObject *const> VecMyObjs; VecMyObjs.assign( _VecMyObjs.begin(), _VecMyObjs.end()); return VecMyObjs; } But of course the compiler is warning me, that I use the assign

问题 In Netbeans Platform I'm having one module watch the xml filesystem and respond when it's changed by other modules. I've created a layer.xml in another module. The changes show up in the IDE when in the watching module I click on XML layer node and open up . However during runtime when the watching module is looking at the xml filesystem the changes from the other module aren't there. The other module can see its own changes during runtime. Is there a setting somewhere for a module that lets