On Friday, 26 September 2014 at 18:18:45 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 9/26/14 1:36 PM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?=
<schue...@gmx.net>" wrote:
Alternatively, you could create a union with a private and a
public
member with the same types, but I wouldn't recommend it.
Besides, the
members would need to have different names:
class Foo {
union {
private int a;
public int b;
}
}
Hm.. that doesn't provide readonly access to either a or b.
But it gave me an idea:
class Foo {
union {
private int _a;
public const int a;
}
void setA(int x) { _a = x; }
}
Yes, that's what I originally intended. Just forgot the const,
and didn't even notice it after I reread it :-P
