[3545] in java-interest
Re: protected is not? (longish)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Aleph One)
Wed Nov 15 21:54:43 1995
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 16:22:05 -0600 (CST)
From: Aleph One <aleph1@dfw.net>
To: "D'Arcy Smith" <darcy@arcs.bcit.bc.ca>
Cc: java-interest@java.sun.com
In-Reply-To: <30AA5795.4974@arcs.bcit.bc.ca>
I compleatly agree with your comments. If one of the members of the Java
team care to comments. Is this necesary or are we missing a point and
there already is a way to acomplish this in Java?
Aleph One / aleph1@dfw.net
http://underground.org/
KeyID 1024/948FD6B5
Fingerprint EE C9 E8 AA CB AF 09 61 8C 39 EA 47 A8 6A B8 01
On Wed, 15 Nov 1995, D'Arcy Smith wrote:
> Introduce a new keyword?
>
> How about this:
>
> (current java)
> public - world access
> private - class access
> protected - package access
>
> (new java?)
> public - world access
> private - class access
> protected - class/subclass access (like C++)
> shared - package access
>
> thus the above becomes:
>
>
> class Base
> {
> protected int x;
> shared int y;
> }
>
>
> class Derived
> {
> public void f()
> {
> x = 1;
> y = 2;
> }
> }
>
>
> class OtherClass
> {
> public void g()
> {
> Base b = new Base();
>
> b.x = 1; // good I can't access Base::x here :-)
> b.y = 2; // good I can access Base::y here :-)
> }
> }
>
> This also has the effect of getting rid of the implicit friending
> of all package related classes. (I like that :-))
> So now a class can say what it's friends are allowed to see and not
> be exposed to the world =:-0.
>
> comments?
>
> ..darcy
>
> --
> D'Arcy Smith, Systems Analyst
> Applied Research in Computer Systems (ARCS) Laboratory
> British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT), Burnaby, BC, Canada
> E-Mail: darcy@arcs.bcit.bc.ca URL http://www.arcs.bcit.bc.ca
> Tel: (604) 432-8281 Fax: (604) 436-1297
>
-
This message was sent to the java-interest mailing list
Info: send 'help' to java-interest-request@java.sun.com
