On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 21:34:54 +0100 Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/9/13, kenji hara <k.hara...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It's introduced by fixing issue 5385, so at least not a regression > > Perhaps we could relax the rule and allow bypassing access > restrictions when using typeof(). I think that's asking for confusion to have different visibility rules inside and outside typeof(). The typical way to access private members when really needed is via a reflection mechanism, and we already have a way to do that as two people have mentioned.
