<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: [LC++]enum, #define, const, static const, or member const???</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> > Making something private implies it is part of a class, so it is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > not in the global namespace anyway.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> That is not correct. 'private' controls the accessibility: whether</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> or not you are allowed to access in (by de compiler). It has no</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> effect whatsoever on the linker-level.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Yes, I agree :)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>However, I was just pointing out that since it had to be in a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>class (or a struct, but it's the same), then it had to be not in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the global namespace. This is a direct effect or being in the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>class' namespace, thus an indirect effect of it being private</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>(since being private implies being part of a class). I did not</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>mean to imply that private directly affects the export or not.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sorry for not being clear.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-- </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Vincent Penquerc'h </FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>