Re: Why would anyone want opacity?

[Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk>]

> how did this become a position that implies "such access should be
> disallowed (rather than strongly discouraged and unlikely to happen
> accidentally)" all of a sudden?

Isn't that what opacity means: there's no way within the language
(as opposed to, say, some debugging environment) to break the
abstraction?  There are of course many intermediate and
compromise positions, of which Mitch Wand's is probably one.

-- jeff