On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:54:09 +0100 Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com> wrote:
> On 2013-02-09 21:51, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > > 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. > > Couldn't typeof() be considered part of a reflection mechanism? > Yea, but not the part of reflection I was trying to refer to. Wasn't sure what to call it besides the overly-general "reflection mechanism".
