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
