On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote:
> Besides, isn't C++'s protected totally different > from Java's? Oops. Yes. And I was thinking of C++ "protected". Basically, I think the "private" keyword in C++ should be dropped. Mainly for pragmatic reasons. Every time I have forgotten to label a data field "protected" such that it ended up "private", I have at some point down the road regretted that while building some derived class. So "private" in C++ is an intellectually appealing notion that never seems empirically to be the right thing to do. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
