A question regarding encapsulation 1

[utahjzz98]

If you only reference member variables inside the object they are contained in, do you need to create properties for those member variables, or can you just reference them directly?

 

[stevexff]

If they are private and not visible outside the class, then it is more a question of taste and style than anything else.

Steve

[small]"Every program can be reduced by one instruction, and every program has at least one bug. Therefore, any program can be reduced to one instruction which doesn't work." (Object:erlDesignPatterns)[/small]

 

[utahjzz98]

But if I make a property, then it will be visible outside the class correct? If it doesn't need to be accessible outside the class then I can just refer to it by it's name inside the local object instead of creating a property?

 

[jmeckley]

the language may have some bearing here. properties are most common in .net. assuming that is the language you are talking about a property is really just syntax sugar for get/set functions.

string Foo {get;set;}

gets compiled to

string _getFoo;
void _setFoo(string value);

if you think of properties as functions without () then you can decide if it makes sense to use protected/private properties.

if you need to encapsulate logic, even within a class itself, then a property makes sense. other wise a field works just as well.

Jason Meckley
Programmer
Specialty Bakers, Inc.

faq855-7190
faq732-7259