private vs protected in Interfaces

[Andrej Mitrovic]

I agree, NVI really looks like a nice idiom/pattern to me, I'd hate to loose
it.

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Friday 13 August 2010 23:14:02 Christian Kamm wrote:
> > Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> > > TPDL, page 216: "Making an overridable function private in an
> > > interface..prevents an implementation from calling the super function".
> > >
> > > But the code example above compiles and runs fine.
> >
> > See http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4542 .
> >
> > By the D spec, private implies final. That means unimplemented private
> > methods in interfaces have little use. Also 'private override' should be
> an
> > error.
> >
> > Or spec and compiler should be changed to be in line with TDPL.
> >
> > Christian
>
> Generally speaking, if the spec and TDPL are in conflict, TDPL is supposed
> to
> win. Still, until Walter says something about it or it's fixed, we won't
> know for
> sure. I really do think that TDPL should win out in this case though. It
> would
> not be good to be unable to do NVI.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20100814/d30ffa07/attachment-0001.html>