Re: [Vala] protected classes

[Jürg Billeter <j bitron ch>]

On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 19:04 +0200, Ali Sabil wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Juerg Billeter <j bitron ch> wrote:
> >  Ok, I see what you mean now. However, I don't think it makes sense to
> >  distinguish between classes in public header files and classes whose
> >  symbols are exported. All classes that are in public header files should
> >  be exported and all classes that are exported should be in public header
> >  files. So we only need two kinds of top-level classes: public classes (in
> >  public header files and symbols are exported) and internal classes (in
> >  private header files and symbols are not exported). The currently
> >  available 'private' classes don't make sense at all at the top-level, as
> >  there is no way you could ever access them (except when it contains the
> >  main method).
> >
> >  I don't think we should use 'protected' for internal classes, this
> >  conflicts with the 'protected' used for specifying accessibility to
> >  subtypes. 'internal' sounds fine, in my opinion, it's also in line with
> >  C#.
> >
> 
> I am not sure, but I currently find the private classes very useful,
> and I use them quite often,
> what about having public, private and package visibility for the classes ?

How exactly do you use private top-level classes at the moment? Do you
have multiple top-level classes in one source file, some of them private
and you access the private class from the public class?

Wouldn't private inner classes work fine, too, in that case?

Jürg