On 2/6/10 01:25, retard wrote:
Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:03:22 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
retard wrote:
Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:24:44 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
retard wrote:
{protection-attr} == perhaps one of these
{public|protected|package|
private} - I have no effing clue what this does
It actually does the same thing as it does in C++ (with the addition
of package).
I see. I only noticed now that dmd actually does enforce this rule in
some cases. Unfortunately the rule is checked only statically when it
can be checked. If you access the object via base class or interface
type reference, a runtime check is not made unlike in c++.
There must be some misunderstanding here. There are no runtime access
checks in C++, it is all done statically at compile time.
Thanks. It seems I have been testing this with a buggy c++ compiler or
can't remember what was the problem previously. I now tried with gcc
4.4.3 and this is how D and C++ differ:
---
class Foo {
public:
void bar() {}
};
class Bar : private Foo {
};
int main() {
Foo *a = new Bar();
a->bar();
}
test.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
test.cpp:10: error: ‘Foo’ is an inaccessible base of ‘Bar’
---
module m1;
class Foo {
public void bar() {}
}
class Bar : private foo {
}
module m2;
import m1;
void main() {
Foo a = new Bar();
a.bar();
}
// compiles and runs just fine
// Changing the 'Foo a = ...' into 'Bar a = ...' makes this an error
Is there any use to make the base class non public in D? I mean you will
also make the Object part inaccessible. Another thing to remove in D2?
