Nice solution wanted: Hide internal interfaces

[Johannes Bauer]

On 29.10.2012 17:47, Chris Angelico wrote:

> The usual convention for private methods is a leading underscore on the name:

Yup, that's what I'm using.

> It's only a convention, though; it doesn't make it "hard" to call
> them, it just sends the message "this is private, I don't promise that
> it'll be stable across versions".

Yes, I know. But it's good enough. I don't want to restrict the use
under all circumstances, just make it clear to the user what she is
supposed to use and what not.

> Incidentally, you may want to use a nested class, if the definition of
> B is entirely dependent on A. Something like this:

Ah, that's nice. I didn't know that nested classes could access their
private members naturally (i.e. without using any magic, just with plain
old attribute access).

This makes the source files largish however (they're currently split up
in different files). Can I use the nested class advantage and somehow
include the inner class from another file?

Best regards,
Joe

-- 
>> Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt?
> Zumindest nicht öffentlich!
Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere großen
Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage.
 - Karl Kaos über Rüdiger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1 at speranza.aioe.org>