On Friday, 19 October 2012 at 21:09:05 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
My understanding is that this is intentionally disallowed:
---------------------------
module foo;
class Foo
{
private void func() {}
}
class Bar : Foo
{
// Disallowed:
private override void func() {}
}
void foobar(Foo f)
{
f.func();
}
---------------------------
If D had C++'s "private", that restriction would make a lot of
sense
(except possibly for nested classes, but I dunno). That's
because: How
can you override a class you can't even access?
But D doesn't have a "true" private in the C++ sense. Instead,
there
is code outside a class which *is* permitted to access "private"
members.
So am I missing something, or was the sample case above
overlooked when
making the "private must be non-virtual" decision?
virtual private is an obscure C++ idiom which I think the
argument for is extremely week. I think Walter made the right
decision here in favor of more readable code.
I'd do the following:
---------------------------
module foo;
class Foo {
private void func() { funcImpl(); }
protected void funcImpl() {}
}
class Bar : Foo {
protected override void funcImpl() {}
}
void foobar(Foo f) {
f.func();
}
---------------------------
