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