On 6/13/07, David Flanagan <david / davidflanagan.com> wrote:
> Meinrad,
>
> I favor leaving private methods exactly as they currently are, but
> adding a new mechanism or visibility level that a class writer can use
> to ensure that local helper methods are not overwritten.  Surely the
> author of a class ought to have the right to decide whether subclassers
> are allowed to meddle!
>
>      David
>
Hmm, but if there is something about a superclass which cannot be
changed (not even by using some backdoor) the re-usability of that
class is poor because it might not be possible to adapt the class to
specific needs. It is impossible for the author to predict all
possible use cases. That's why everything should be allowed. Nobody
wants that others decide what he needs or needs not.

I agree with you that prevention of *accidental* overwriting of
private methods is a good thing though.

-- henon