On Fri, 2008-10-17 at 09:44 -0700, Eric Northup wrote: > > What we now have in mind is to introduce a new constraint: > > > > (has-field 'a name 'b) > > > I don't see how you would be able to get "protected" fields out of > this. Perhaps that's fine (I've seen it mis-used quite often), but just > thought I'd mention it.
1. The C++ notion of public/private/protected is a kludge. Protected isn't meaningful in the absence of inheritance, which BitC does not propose to have. 2. Private/protected are not true encapsulation, in the sense that the types are exposed. This is why #include requirements proliferate in C++. 3. It isn't the goal here to support that concept. > The module system might be a better way to perform that kind of > encapsulation anyway. Is there a module equivalent of "friend"? That would violate the entire point of a module! shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
