On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 06:19 -0700, Michael Lawrence wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 2:43 AM, Jürg Billeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 22:42 -0700, Michael Lawrence wrote: > > When overriding a property, I found that I needed to declare > it > > 'public' before it was actually accessible (i.e. the > internal getter > > function was defined but the override was not registered in > > class_init). Is this by design? It's certainly strange to > privately > > override something. > > > The convention in Vala and C# are that the accessibility of > the > overriding method must be the same as the accessibility of the > overridden method. We might want to consider to allow more > flexibility > at some point, however, at the moment you should follow the > convention. > > This makes sense, but why is it possible to omit the "public" keyword > when overriding a method, but not for a property?
That's not intentional, it shouldn't be possible for methods, either, that's just a missing check. However, I'm actually considering dropping this and only requiring the developer to write `public` to export new symbols. Any opinions on that? Juerg _______________________________________________ Vala-list mailing list Vala-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
