🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan8.044714.2027@qualcomm.com> greg@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Greg Noel) writes:
[...]
>The semantics would be that all names defined in the scope would be visible
>within the scope (subject to the usual scoping/visibility rules, of course);
>names that were declared in the class description would be the only ones
>exported from the scope.  This would allow a helper function to be defined
>that had full access to the class private members, but still be type-safe,
>since the only way to access the helper functions would be from within the
>scope and the only way to enter the scope would be via the class interface.
>
>That is,
>	class Class {
>	public:  int func1();
>	};
>	Class:: {
>		int helper() { /* ... */ }
>		int func1() { /* code including calls to helper() */ }
>	}
>Since helper() is not declared in the class, it is not exported from the
>scope, while func1() is declared in the class, so it is exported in the
>normal fashion.
>

You can accomplish the same thing with
	class Class {
	private: static int helper ();
	public:  int func1();
	};
although you don't get the syntactic sugar.