Stewart Gordon <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |

--- Comment #10 from Stewart Gordon <>  2009-08-20 11:57:14 PDT 
(In reply to comment #7)
> Access protection is defined to happen after lookup and overload resolution.

Defined where in the spec?

> Making private symbols invisible defeats this,

Would it be reasonable to change it as I described in the final paragraph of
issue 3254 comment 3?

> and also doesn't work as the
> overload list is a linked list, and making the head of it private would hide
> the rest of the possibly public overloads.

That's obviously an implementation issue.  Possible ways to deal with this:

(a) have multiple linked lists, one for each protection attribute
(b) build the linked list in such a way that the head element will always be
one of the ones of the most public access level that exists among the overloads

Configure issuemail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to