On 11/23/05, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/22/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/23/05, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 11/22/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is there any objection to me changing instan
On 11/22/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 11/23/05, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 11/22/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there any objection to me changing instance variables from
> "protected"
> > > to
> > > "private"?
> >
> >
On 11/23/05, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/22/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Is there any objection to me changing instance variables from "protected"
> > to
> > "private"?
>
>
> +1 unless there are already subclasses that access such variables from the
On 11/22/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is there any objection to me changing instance variables from "protected"
> to
> "private"?
+1 unless there are already subclasses that access such variables from their
superclass ... in which case we should evaluate whether a getter met
Is there any objection to me changing instance variables from "protected" to
"private"?
Niall
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]