Re: [Vala] protected classes
- From: "Vlad Grecescu" <b100dian gmail com>
- To: j bitron ch
- Cc: Vala ML <vala-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: [Vala] protected classes
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 00:11:32 +0300
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 4:23 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).
Sure, no distinction between header presence and exported symbols.
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
I use private classes too, for the same reason as Ali (a matter of taste).
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
True, 'internal' in C# does exactly that.
Thanks for listening!
] [Thread Prev