Nested classes or whatelse type is always "static" from a Java view point. So you access those enum values with test.a.TEST. There's no way those types can be tied to a particular instance of the parent class.
I could not understand the rest of the mail, sorry. On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Al Thomas <astav...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > The Vala manual states that an enum takes an access modifier, from > https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/Vala/Manual/Enumerated%20types%20%28Enums%29 > :"enum-declaration: > [ access-modifier ] enum qualified-enum-name { [ enum-members ] }" > The following compiles and runs with Vala 0.26.0.33: > > void main(){ > var aa = new test(); > print( aa.a.TEST.to_string ()); > } > > class test: Object { > private enum a { > TEST > } > } > > and only gives a compilation warning about static > members:"private_enum.vala:3.9-3.12: warning: Access to static member > `test.a' with an instance reference > print( aa.a.TEST.to_string ());" > So it would appear the current implementation for enums is that they are > public and static. So is this an implementation bug because the access > modifier is ignored or a documentation bug because access modifiers for > enums aren't that useful? > What has brought this on is a patch adding the 'protected' access modifier > to the Genie parser - https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=690848 > Generally I would say the 'public', 'private' and 'protected' access > modifiers allow a public interface for using and extending a class to be > defined a bit more clearly. So implementation details can be hidden with > 'private', but also allowed to be extended with 'protected'. While 'public' > provides the accessible API. In that sense enum, as well as struct and > delegate, can be implementation details where access can be restricted. > Enum, struct and delegate are all type definitions so probably should not > be modifiable by a class sub-type, but readable so they can be accessed for > creating a variable of the right type. The patch has also highlighted that > 'interface' has an access modifier. Surely an interface should always be > public? Although a method within an interface could possibly be protected > as a mixin for implementation only? > Any thoughts? > Al Thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > vala-list mailing list > vala-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list > -- NixOS Linux <http://nixos.org> _______________________________________________ vala-list mailing list vala-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
