http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2538
------- Comment #7 from 2kor...@gmail.com 2009-01-20 16:57 ------- (In reply to comment #6) > I would propose that it should be an error to implement an interface with > private protection. It makes no sense, as an interface is used where you do > not know the implementation, but a private symbol can only be used in the file > it's declared in, so you *should* know the implementation by looking at the > file. > Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, but it certainly does to me (see my examples). I believe I've brought enough examples where private and package methods are desired to have polymorphic behavior. --