I’ve never seen any coding convention in C# that distinguished between public and private methods. I don’t suggest doing it, since I don’t see the benefit. If the method name conflicts with public methods, it’s time to become more descriptive; if, as in your case, it contains the actual method implementation for the public method, … Read more
When you call a.foo();, the compiler goes through overload resolution to find the best function to use. When it builds the overload set it finds void foo() const and void foo() Now, since a is not const, the non-const version is the best match, so the compiler picks void foo(). Then the access restrictions are … Read more
Well, unit testing should test units and ideally every class is a self-contained unit – this follows directly from the single responsibility principle. So testing private members of a class shouldn’t be necessary – the class is a black box that can be covered in a unit test as-is. On the other hand, this isn’t … Read more
The usual convention is to split your module into public and private parts, i.e. module SomeModule.Internal where — … exports all private methods and then the public API module SomeModule where (export1, export2) import SomeModule.Internal Then you can import SomeModule.Internal in tests and other places where its crucial to get access to the internal implementation. … Read more
Rather than the nasty #define hack you mention in the question, a cleaner mechanism is to make the test a friend of the class under test. This allows the test code (and just the test code) access to the privates, whilst protecting them from everything else. However, it is preferable to test through the public … Read more
You can’t override a private method, but you can introduce one in a derived class without a problem. This compiles fine: class Base { private void foo() { } } class Child extends Base { private void foo() { } } Note that if you try to apply the @Override annotation to Child.foo() you’ll get … Read more
Please note that there is no such thing as “private method” in Python. Double underscore is just name mangling: >>> class A(object): … def __foo(self): … pass … >>> a = A() >>> A.__dict__.keys() [‘__dict__’, ‘_A__foo’, ‘__module__’, ‘__weakref__’, ‘__doc__’] >>> a._A__foo() So therefore __ prefix is useful when you need the mangling to occur, for … Read more
Rather than the nasty #define hack you mention in the question, a cleaner mechanism is to make the test a friend of the class under test. This allows the test code (and just the test code) access to the privates, whilst protecting them from everything else. However, it is preferable to test through the public … Read more
I think the best way (and mostly how existing libs are written) to do this is by creating a class within the module that deals with all the logic, and the module just provides a convenient method, e.g. module GTranslate class Translator def perform(text) translate(text) end private def translate(text) # do some private stuff here … Read more
When you call a.foo();, the compiler goes through overload resolution to find the best function to use. When it builds the overload set it finds void foo() const and void foo() Now, since a is not const, the non-const version is the best match, so the compiler picks void foo(). Then the access restrictions are … Read more