On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 22:26:17 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 14:13:52 -0400, Jonathan M Davis
<jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote:
On Monday, October 04, 2010 10:37:53 Sean Kelly wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> There is still debate on the matter of private methods in interfaces.
> Please bring up in this forum any additional pro and con arguments
that
> you might have.
What debate? Private methods don't get a vtbl entry so I don't see
how an
interface could possibly require one, regardless of in-module
visibility.
Except that per TDPL private methods are _supposed_ to be in the vtable:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4542
The fact that they don't currently is definitely limiting. Personally,
I liked
what TDPL said about interfaces and private methods, and I don't know
what the
debate against them is. It all seemed quite sensible to me.
Regardless, however, private methods really should be properly
polymorphic.
What possible use case could private methods being polymorphic allow?
A private method can only be called by the class that contains the
implementation. Allowing base classes to call it makes no sense.
Make the method protected, it gives the desired effect (including for
the example in the bug report as stated by the original reporter).
-Steve
module private;
import std.stdio;
class A
{
private void foo()
{
writeln("hi there");
}
}
class B : A
{
void test()
{
foo();
}
}
void main()
{
B b = new B();
b.test();
}
# dmd private.d && ./private
hi there!
