On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 at 08:34:51 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 at 07:57:23 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 at 07:27:50 UTC, Namespace wrote:
I'm also for an explicit 'virtual' keyword.
But I don't get why private methods should be virtual? That
makes never sense.
Because the unit of encapsulation in D is the module not the
class.
Still it does not make sense.
If a method is supposed to be overridable by others but not
visible outside of the class that is what protected is for.
I have experience in several OO languages and I consider C++'s
private virtual
belongs to the same dustbin as checked exceptions, as I am yet
to find any design scenario where it makes sense.
private in D don't have the same meaning as private in C++ . You
are comparing apple and oranges.
