[Exceptional C++ Style] Fw: const data - was Item 17

[Jon Jagger]

Balog Pal wrote:

> From: "Jon Jagger" <jon at jaggersoft.com>
>
>> Ultimately, as always, it boils down to a choice. I could use get 
>> accessors in the class, declare those as operations in an interface, 
>> and program to the interface. This would, as you say, allow me 
>> handle-body if I wanted to. The problem is I don't want to. And I 
>> cannot think of a reason why I'd want to.
>
>
> That's it.  There are places abstraction does not makes sense, period. 
>
>> If you can think of any reasons why I'd want to handle-body I would 
>> be very interested to hear them. Remember the grammar does nothing. 
>> It really is just data.
>
>
> that reminds the portion in this episode:
>
> http://www.objectmentor.com/resources/articles/xpepisode.htm
>
> where class Throw is discussed at the beginning. 
>
Hmmm. But suppose I wanted to record not just the score for each bowl 
but also the specific pattern of pins knocked down? In that case a Throw 
class might be useful. (But a name better than Throw would be nice). As 
always it depends. But I think that case is a bit different.

One of the reasons I'm "more ok" with the grammar containing public 
const fields is because the fields are _not_ primitive types - they're 
NonTerminal's which have structure of their own.

Cheers
Jon