On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:25:56 -0800 Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 14 November 2010 11:29:55 spir wrote: > > I don't understand in which case you need to reuse the same name in a > > subclass for a _different_ field -- whether the field is public or private > > does not seem really relevant to me. But maybe I overlook some common use > > case. > > Private fields are effectively hidden from derived classes. Derived classes > shouldn't care what they're named and shouldn't have to care. The only time > that > it becomes any kind of issue is if both the base class and derived class are > in > the same module, since then the derived class has access to the base class' > private members and functions (even though it probably shouldn't actually use > them) from being in the same module. > > Having public fields shadow each other is problematic. Having private fields > do so > should be irrelevant. > > - Jonathan M Davis Right, this makes sense. Denis -- -- -- -- -- -- -- vit esse estrany ☣ spir.wikidot.com
