I think someone needs to distribute a version of the SDK where all
instances of private has been replaced with protected ;)
On 15/06/2007, at 11:38 AM, Bjorn Schultheiss wrote:
On 15/06/2007, at 11:25 AM, reflexactions wrote:
For a trully extensible framework that is supposed to form the basis
of this whole platform it shouldnt be left that developers need to
justify WHY something should be protected, it should be for the
framework author to justify WHY something is private.
I love it!!!
That 'play it safe' line was lame.
Use that one for the boss but not for us, the poor devs who might
actually need to reference the private member.
regards,
Bjorn
