Shouldn't private methods be virtual too?

Jarrett Billingsley kb3ctd2 at yahoo.com
Tue Jun 10 18:58:55 PDT 2008


"Robert Fraser" <fraserofthenight at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:g2n15d$2jo8$1 at digitalmars.com...
>
> I agree, but last time I asked this it seemed like an unwinnable battle 
> (everyone else said private should imply "final"). More controversial was 
> whether "package" should imply "final" (which it does now, but I think it 
> should not).

I'll agree with you on "package".  "package" should be entirely a visibility 
attribute.  More or less it would function like 'protected' as long as the 
deriving class were in the same package; and 'private' if it weren't.  Sigh. 





More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list