Temporary suspension of disbelief (invariant)

[Walter Bright]

Rainer Deyke wrote:
> On 10/26/2010 20:16, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Rainer Deyke wrote:
>>> On the other hand, if the object itself calls it own public member
>>> functions, then no invariants should be checked.  Not being able to call
>>> public member functions while the object is temporarily in an invalid
>>> state is too strict.  This is a problem that I actually ran into while
>>> using D, and one of the reasons for why I stopped using invariants.
>> A solution is to redesign what the class considers public and private. A
>> public member can be a shell around a private implementation, and other
>> class members can call that private implementation without invoking the
>> invariant.
> 
> Writing wrapper functions is a waste of my time.  Auto-generating
> wrapper functions through some sort of meta-programming magic is still a
> waste of my time, since the process cannot be completely automated.

Then I agree that not using invariants at all is probably your best option.