Re: Defining a constructor for Element and friends

* Domenic Denicola wrote:
>From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:[email protected]] 
>> I know that this a major concern to you, but my impression is that few 
>> if any other people regard that as anything more than "nice to have", 
>> especially if you equate "explaining" with having a public API for it.
>
>How do you propose having a private constructor API?
>
>How do you propose instances of the objects even existing at all, if
>there is no constructor that creates them?
>
>This is one of those "only makes sense to a C++ programmer" things.

I think it is misleading to describe something as "a design goal" if it
is not widely accepted as a design goal, and my impression is that this
is not widely accepted as a design goal. I also think it is entirely
normal to deal with objects you have no way of creating on your own.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email protected] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
 Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015)  · http://www.websitedev.de/