• Sean Kelly (14/14) Feb 24 2004 I just tried this:
• Kris (4/18) Feb 24 2004 Attributes are apparently applied at the module-level, rather than the
• J Anderson (4/33) Feb 24 2004 --
• Sean Kelly (4/5) Feb 24 2004 Hm. So how would I go about creating a singleton or other class that
• J Anderson (7/13) Feb 24 2004 I'm not exactly sure what you mean by special construction
• Sean Kelly (4/9) Feb 24 2004 Thanks. As for special construction requirements, I think that could

Sean Kelly <sean ffwd.cx> writes:

I just tried this:

class A
{
protected:
     this() { printf( "ctor\n" ); }
}

int main()
{
     A a = new A();
}

And it compiled and, when run, printed: "ctor."  Is the "protected" 
keyword not working correctly or is there some rule that class 
constructors are inherently public?


Sean

"Kris" <someidiot earthlink.net> writes:

Attributes are apparently applied at the module-level, rather than the
class-level.


"Sean Kelly" <sean ffwd.cx> wrote in message
news:c1ga1h$1c3d$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I just tried this:

 class A
 {
 protected:
      this() { printf( "ctor\n" ); }
 }

 int main()
 {
      A a = new A();
 }

 And it compiled and, when run, printed: "ctor."  Is the "protected"
 keyword not working correctly or is there some rule that class
 constructors are inherently public?


 Sean

J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:

Kris wrote:

Attributes are apparently applied at the module-level, rather than the
class-level.

  

That is not true in this situation.  Constructors are always public.

"Sean Kelly" <sean ffwd.cx> wrote in message
news:c1ga1h$1c3d$1 digitaldaemon.com...
  

I just tried this:

class A
{
protected:
     this() { printf( "ctor\n" ); }
}

int main()
{
     A a = new A();
}

And it compiled and, when run, printed: "ctor."  Is the "protected"
keyword not working correctly or is there some rule that class
constructors are inherently public?


Sean

    


  


-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

Sean Kelly <sean ffwd.cx> writes:

J Anderson wrote:
 That is not true in this situation.  Constructors are always public.

Hm.  So how would I go about creating a singleton or other class that 
has special construction requirements?


Sean

J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:

Sean Kelly wrote:

 J Anderson wrote:

 That is not true in this situation.  Constructors are always public.


 Hm.  So how would I go about creating a singleton or other class that 
 has special construction requirements?

 Sean

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by special construction 
requirements.  There was a whole discussion on singletons before, so you 
might what to look at that (using module-level or static members were 
suggested). Search for singletons.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

Sean Kelly <sean ffwd.cx> writes:

J Anderson wrote:
 
 I'm not exactly sure what you mean by special construction 
 requirements.  There was a whole discussion on singletons before, so you 
 might what to look at that (using module-level or static members were 
 suggested). Search for singletons.

Thanks.  As for special construction requirements, I think that could 
all be handled by overloading "new."  Just thinking out loud.


Sean