Private visible?

[xs0]

>> Private members should be totally invisible, because that's the point of
>> marking them private.
> 
> But then the compiler loses the ability to make intelligent error
> messages, right?

No, the compiler obviously still sees them.. But as far as things like 
overload resolution are concerned, the end result should be the same as 
if they didn't exist (note that this point is moot if they're all 
required to be at the same visibility)


>> As for overloading issues, as far as I am concerned, feel free to
>> require all methods with the same name to have the same protection;
>> anything else is poor taste anyway.
> 
> Really? Then how do you hide the previous method implementation?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.. You can override methods as 
normal. You can also increase visibility, if you want, but once you do 
it for one method named "foo", you have to do it for all other methods 
named "foo" as well.

> class A {
>   protected pm() { ... }
> }
> class B : A {
>   // ugly, isn't it :(
>   protected pm() { assert(0); /* subclasses: do not use this */ }
>   public pm2() { super.pm(); ... }
> }

ugly indeed, but not necessary :)

> class A {
>   protected pm() { ... }
> }
> class B : A {
>   public pm() { super.pm(); ... }
> }

All methods in class B called "pm" have the same visibility, so no 
problem...


xs0