Class organization

Classic C++

In c++ classqiue, members are organized by their access level: public, protected and private like this:

class my_class {
public:
  my_class(int value_a, int value_b) : value_a(value_a), value_b_(value_b) {}
  my_class(const my_class&) = default;
  
  int value_a() const noexcept {return value_a_;}
  
  int value_b() const noexcept {return value_b_;}
  
protected:
  my_class() = default;
  
  void value_a(int value) noexcept {value_a_ = value;}
  void value_b(int value) noexcept {value_b_ = value;}
  
private:
  int value_a_ = 0;
  int value_b_ = 0;
};

Proposal for xtd

It would make more sense to group mebmres by functionality and not by access. I imagine something like this:

class my_class {
  protected_ my_class() = default;
  public_ my_class(int value_a, int value_b) : value_a(value_a), value_b_(value_b) {}
  public_ my_class(const my_class&) = default;
  
  private_ int value_a_ = 0;
  public_ int value_a() const noexcept {return value_a_;}
  protected_ void value_a(int value) noexcept {value_a_ = value;}
  
  private_ int value_b_ = 0;
  public_ int value_b() const noexcept {return value_b_;}
  protected_ void value_b(int value) noexcept {value_b_ = value;}    
};

To be able to write a class like above, you obviously need three more keywords (there are already some like abastract, interface, ...).

#define private_ private:
#define protected_ protected:
#define public_ public:

PRO

• More concise
• In a big class with a lot of people and a lot of documents, you can see the type of access.

CON

• if you forget one of the keywords to a member, it is the keyword of the previous member that will be applied

Conclusion

It changes the way of writing but the organization is much clearer. It looks much more like a modern language like Java or CSharp.

But the change is too "disruptive", and that it risks to disturb too much the habits of c++ developers.

It will remain only conceptual.