You're right. These protected variables are sometimes not ideal. If you
change anything to private while you work on the code, that's fine for
On 03.10.2006 15:02:28 Andrejus Chaliapinas wrote:
> While trying to debug some changes I've made wtih layout managers I've
> noticed that some classes have Logger as protected but not private member?
> What is the rationale here - just easy later inheritance of logger or
> anything else? For me it seems that logger purpose is to exactly identify
> the class, which makes some output and thus shown by name and not see some
> parent class name in output. What do you think? How about changing that
> current protected to private?
> Thank you,