On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Per Bothner wrote:

> Security is not the motivation for opacity.  Maintainability is the
> main motivation: If I don't expose the internals of my data structures
> to client programs, then I have a better chance of modifying those
> internals in a future version of my library without breaking those
> clients.

If you provide adequate (documented, supported) interfaces to your code,
and somebody writes something that twiddles its bits directly instead,
then unless s/he is solving a problem that cannot otherwise be solved,
s/he is *WRONG* and coding against standards and should not keep the
job.  This is not a language issue.  This is a coding practices issue.

					Bear