[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [LC++]enum, #define, const, static const, or member const???
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 02:26:34PM +0100, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote:
> > > Making something private implies it is part of a class, so it is
> > > not in the global namespace anyway.
> >
> > That is not correct. 'private' controls the accessibility: whether
> > or not you are allowed to access in (by de compiler). It has no
> > effect whatsoever on the linker-level.
>
> Yes, I agree :)
> However, I was just pointing out that since it had to be in a
> class (or a struct, but it's the same), then it had to be not in
> the global namespace. This is a direct effect or being in the
> class' namespace, thus an indirect effect of it being private
> (since being private implies being part of a class). I did not
> mean to imply that private directly affects the export or not.
> Sorry for not being clear.
Actually, you were clear. I didn't read it well. Sorry.
--
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
- Prev by Date:
Re: [LC++]enum, #define, const, static const, or member const???
- Next by Date:
Re: [LC++]Why map<string, string&> not acceptable?
- Prev by thread:
RE: [LC++]enum, #define, const, static const, or member const???
- Next by thread:
Re: [LC++]enum, #define, const, static const, or member const???
- Index(es):