Understanding Bob Martin’s Closed For Modification Explanation
“Closed for modification.” Extending the behavior of a module does not
result in changes to the source or binary code of the module. The
binary executable version of the module, whether in a linkable
library, a DLL, or a Java .jar, remains untouched.
Understanding Bob Martin’s Closed For Modification Explanation
“Closed for modification.” Extending the behavior of a module does not
result in changes to the source or binary code of the module. The
binary executable version of the module, whether in a linkable
library, a DLL, or a Java .jar, remains untouched.
Understanding Bob Martin’s Closed For Modification Explanation
“Closed for modification.” Extending the behavior of a module does not
result in changes to the source or binary code of the module. The
binary executable version of the module, whether in a linkable
library, a DLL, or a Java .jar, remains untouched.
Understanding Bob Martin’s Closed For Modification Explanation
“Closed for modification.” Extending the behavior of a module does not
result in changes to the source or binary code of the module. The
binary executable version of the module, whether in a linkable
library, a DLL, or a Java .jar, remains untouched.
Do private members/methods inherently violate the open-closed principle?
Doesnt private members and methods inherently violate the open-closed principle?
Given that private, protected and public modifiers are supported.
Is updating a macro value in Xcode preprocessors marcos violating open closed principle?
For example, for some xcode projects, if I have some places that defines a number at some .cpp files: