On 9/23/20 2:38 PM, 60rntogo wrote:
So my questions are:

1. Can I achieve my original goal of being able to refer to _x by one name, so that I have read only access from outside the module and read/write access from inside?

I would guess no. You have to use different names.

2. Is the behavior that allows me to call the private method intended? This is such a blatant violation of encapsulation that it feels like a bug either in the language or the implementation.

This is a bug in the language. Either varying ONLY by visibility of an overload should be disallowed, or you shouldn't have access to the private x. I don't know which one the answer is, but certainly the current behavior is erroneous.

-Steve

Reply via email to