省略“private”会让人困惑吗？类定义中的关键字？

发布于 2024-10-17 09:17:17 字数 672 浏览 12 评论 0原文

我最近删除了从类定义中指定的 private，因为它位于顶部，紧接在 class 关键字之后：

class MyClass
{
private:
    int someVariable;
// ...

我认为它是多余的。

一位同事不同意这一点，称这实际上“隐藏”了数据的私有性质。

我们的大多数遗留代码都明确地声明了访问说明符，并且通常在整个定义中不一致地混合它们。我们的班级规模也往往很大。

我试图使我的新类足够小，以便我的类定义类似于：

class MyClass
{
    // 3-4 lines of private variables
protected:
    //  3-4 lines of protected functions
public:
    //  public interface
}

这将允许省略冗余访问说明符，同时（希望）保持 private 成员足够接近 struct/class 关键字供参考。

我是否为了简洁而牺牲了可读性，或者 struct/class 关键字就足够了？

原文

I recently removed a private specified from a class definition because it was at the top, immediately after the class keyword:

class MyClass
{
private:
    int someVariable;
// ...

I thought that it was redundant.

A coworker disagreed with this, saying that it effectively "hid" the private nature of the data.

Most of our legacy code explicitly states the access specifiers, and usually intermingles them inconsistently throughout the definition. Our classes also tend to be very large.

I'm trying to make my newer classes small enough so that my class definitions are similar to:

class MyClass
{
    // 3-4 lines of private variables
protected:
    //  3-4 lines of protected functions
public:
    //  public interface
}

which would allow omission of the redundant access specifier while (hopefully) keeping the private members close enough to the struct/class keyword for reference.

Am I sacrificing readability for brevity, or are the struct/class keywords sufficient?

分享到QQ

分享到微博

如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。

发布评论

需要登录才能够评论，你可以免费注册一个本站的账号。

对风讲故事 2024-10-24 09:17:17

如果您非常熟悉所有默认访问级别，那么如果在不需要时忽略它们，您可能不会发现可读性有任何差异。

但是，您会发现许多与您一起工作的人并不是 100% 确定默认访问级别规则。对于经常使用不同语言的人来说尤其如此，因为不同语言的规则可能不同。结果，他们可能会混淆规则。

始终指定访问权限是最安全的选择，哪怕只是为了帮助与您一起工作的人少担心一件事。

回复收藏 0 原文

时光沙漏 2024-10-24 09:17:17

从技术上讲，类开头的“private”或结构开头的“public”是多余的，但我个人不喜欢混合风格，而是喜欢按访问和声明类型排序。对我来说，可读性比简洁更重要。所以我会有一个“公共方法”、“私有属性”等部分，我将它们格式化为这样：

class A
{
public: // methods
private: // methods
private: // attributes
};

这当然也会生成冗余的访问声明。另外，我喜欢把“公共”的东西放在第一位，因为这对课程的用户来说是最重要的。所以，无论如何，我在一开始就需要一个访问说明符。我还将“public”放在“struct”的开头。

Technically, "private" at the beginning of a class or "public" at the beginning of a struct is redundant, however I personally do not like the intermingled style but rather like to order by access and by declaration type. Readability is more important to me as brevity. So I would have a section "public methods", "private attributes" and so on and I format them as such:

class A
{
public: // methods
private: // methods
private: // attributes
};

This of course also generates redundant access declarations. Also, I like putting "public" stuff first because that's most important to users of the class. So, I need an access specifier at the beginning anyway. And I put "public" at the beginning of a "struct" as well.

回复收藏 0 原文