O language designers, don't make use of "private"/"protected" items a hard error. Make it a warning, at worst, or preferably just make "private" a kind of documentation of intent: http://funcall.blogspot.com/2019/12/i-think-you-left-something-out.html …
-
-
Replying to @leastfixedpoint
How do you feel about closed-over variables?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @samth @leastfixedpoint
I strongly disagree with this, by the way. A common misconception is that private is just a lint. In reality it’s a qualifier that affects *name resolution*.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Even if A derives B, A and B can both have a private field foo without name conflicts, because private affects scoping. This is a powerful mechanism to avoid the fragile base class problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
But if private is just a lint, or is overridable in any way, then you open a huge can of worms whereby even *private* modifications to A can break derived classes without warning. Never mess with name resolution!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.