Re: Re: syntax suggestion
Daniel Wallin <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.langbinding |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Alexander Nasonov wrote: > David Abrahams wrote: >>Actually I think the issue here is that we don't need to represent >>access. Why would the system care whether a base was private or >>protected or public? > > > The system could make a decision if its overload resolution algorithm ended > up with a base member function. Members of protected base can be accessed > only from member functions of derived class. I think it's overkill to try to represent access control. It's not even certain that the language we are extending has such a concept. -- Daniel Wallin ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click