static and protection

[Kyle Furlong]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:du56te$1rn5$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>> friendship works, my point was that it shouldn't be there in the first 
>> place, it's not part of the OO paradigm, it's a hack introduced by C++
> 
> Just because it's not part of some archaic OO paradigm doesn't mean it can't 
> exist.  It might be a hack, but I think it's kind of borne out of necessity. 
> Sometimes the rules in OO need to be .. bent a little, and friend classes do 
> just that.  I mean, which would you rather have?  Two classes that need to 
> work together friended so they can access each others' internals, and so no 
> one else can access those internals?  Or be required to make those internals 
> public just so those classes can work together?  If two classes really need 
> to work together but still need to be separate classes, I really don't see 
> any other solution.. 
> 
> 

Well, do people use your *ORGANS* when you work with them?