Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from March 2010
Carl Mäsak wrote: > Carl (>>>>), Moritz (>>>), Carl (>>), Moritz (>): >>>>> <masak> um, so 'protected' is when the deriving classes can see the attribute? >>>>> <jonalv> yup >>>>> <masak> that's what 'private' means in Perl 6. >>>> That's wrong. Perl 6's "private" is like Java's "private" - subclasses >>>> can't see it. >>>> It's just Rakudo being leaky at the moment, not a fallacy of the Perl 6 >>>> language. (Yes, we have failing tests for this; no, we don't run them at >>>> the moment). >>> That is indeed reassuring. Thank you. >>> >>> ...So, how come Perl 6 doesn't have a 'protected' access level? :) >> Exactly for the reasons you brought up against 'protected' as a default: >> in encourages people to inherit from a class just to bypass some of the >> public API. > > Yes, but 'protected' can still be useful in some delimited situations. > I wasn't asking why it isn't the default -- I was wondering why it > isn't there at all. > > The conversation we had on IRC > (<http://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2010-03-23#i_2144261>) seems to > indicate that 'protected' can be emulated with the 'trusts' keyword... > but that doesn't have any explicit support from the spec, and the > 'trusts' keyword hasn't been realized in any Perl 6 implementation so > far. I seem to recall that Pugs did support 'trusts' a few years ago, and that I used it. But I could be wrong. -- Darren DuncanThread Previous | Thread Next