> hmmm static and private... other keywords to > try, but offhand it's been a while i don't know if either would change the > behavior. Could just be inner scope limitations. Might be other > tags/modifiers... > > I feel helpless :(
No need to ;-) Thanks for your help, don't sweat it too much. > I'm not sure if it would help, but sometimes if you reverse the logic you > might get what you want by putting the data in B instead of A. I have a lot of Bs (nodes in a graph). They compute some things and when they get a result, they update A's field. Each A holds the entry point to their inner graph of Bs and waits for the results. So I don't see how I could invert it, really. What *could* do it to have the graph of Bs in thread and sending results as messages to another thread, where A is waiting for them. It's just... I'm so used to being able to mix and compose 'concepts' in D: structs in functions, classes in classes in structs, functions returning functions returning structs, etc. I'm used to begin able to organise my code as I see the problem space. But here, with a struct-in-a-struct, I hit a wall. Not fun, but not problematic too...
