Le 26 mai 2010 à 14:53, Graham Cox a écrit : > > On 26/05/2010, at 10:41 PM, vincent habchi wrote: > >> Hmmm... Let's say you have a class A with a private variable "priv" and b a >> pointer to a subclass of A. Is: >> >> [(A *)b priv] >> >> legal? > > > No. It's not legal syntax for accessing an ivar in any case - square brackets > invoke a method:- [instance method].
Granted. I assumed there was a getter defined. That's because, AFAIC, I almost always synthesize ivars, so they become regular attributes. > Perhaps you could ask is: > > (A*)b->priv legal? Yes. Indeed. > Depends. If priv is @private it is invisible to code other than within the > methods of class A itself, so if this code lived inside such a method it > would work, otherwise it would not. I don't think the cast makes any > difference. So, tell me if I'm wrong, but I infer from your answer that whatever I can do, there is no means for a subclass A' to access any private variable of its ancestor. > But this is not getting to the problem that the OP is having, which AFAICS is > unrelated to @private. @private is a Good Thing™ - often worth using. Well, as a regular Python code writer, I've never missed @private (or even @protected) declarations. I fail anyhow to grasp the relevancy of @private vis-à-vis @protected: It seems logical to me that subclasses be granted access to all ancestor attributes. Vincent_______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
