private vs protected in Interfaces

[Andrej Mitrovic]

Just for the record, the Classes chapter were a *lot* of fun. Andrei kept
the chapters relatively simple, so they're easy to grasp (imo). I thought I
was going to spend weeks trying to understand classes in D, but the class
features really tie in nicely together. I have yet to reach the operator
overloading chapter ( it's pushed way back to chapter 12, I'm not sure why).
I remember I had a really tough time understanding overloading in C++ many
years ago, I'll see how this one goes..

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich at gmail.com
> wrote:

> On page 217+218 there are two interfaces that define some final methods
> with the same name, and a class that inherits from both:
>
> interface Timer
> {
>     final void run() {}
> }
>
> interface Application
> {
>     final void run() {}
> }
>
> class TimedApp : Timer, Application
> {
>     void run() {}    // cannot define run()
> }
>
> Okay, it hijacks both methods which are final, it won't compile which is
> what we want.
> TDPL states: "To access those methods for app of type TimedApp, you'd have
> to write app.Timer.run() and app.Application.run() for Timer's and
> Application's version", where the inheriting class does not hijack the
> methods.
>
> So that would look like this:
>
> interface Timer
> {
>     final void run() {};
> }
>
> interface Application
> {
>     final void run() {};
> }
>
> class TimedApp : Timer, Application
>
> {
> }
>
> import std.stdio;
>
> void main()
> {
>     auto app = new TimedApp;
>     app.Timer.run();  // error, no Timer property
>     app.Application.run(); // error, no Application property
> }
>
> This looks to me like a DMD bug? I know I can do calls like these if a
> class inherits from another class:
>
> class Timer
> {
>     final void run() {};
> }
>
> class Application
> {
>     final void run() {};
> }
>
> class TimedApp : Timer//, Application
>
> {
> }
>
> import std.stdio;
>
> void main()
> {
>     auto app = new TimedApp;
>     app.Timer.run();  // works fine
>     //~ app.Application.run();
> }
>
> (Note I've had to comment out inheriting Application since MI is disallowed
> in D). This will now run. Is this a DMD bug?
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Andrej Mitrovic <
> andrej.mitrovich at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree, NVI really looks like a nice idiom/pattern to me, I'd hate to
>> loose it.
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20100815/d1d46aca/attachment.html>