On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:27:58 -0400, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com>
wrote:
Well, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for the compiler to
enforce that
overridden private methods can't be called by anyone but the base class.
That
being the case, then allowing for private virtual functions is most
definitely
useful. However, if it really isn't possible to restrict it so that
derived
classes can't call the private methods that they've overridden, then I
do agree
that we might as well just stick to using protected and make private
functions
unoverridable. But if we _can_ make it so that derived classes can't call
overridden private methods, I think that that would be valuable and
desirable.
See my earlier post -- if you control the implementation, the compiler
cannot prevent you from calling it. Even if it tries...
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=118350
So you gain nothing, but annoyance (*grumble* now I have to split my
implementation from the virtual function just to be able to call it?).
-Steve
