Strange access types on KArchive pure virtuals

[David Faure]

On Friday 27 April 2007, Richard Dale wrote:
> On Friday 27 April 2007, Frank Osterfeld wrote:
> > > Shouldn't the corresponding pure virtual methods in karchive.h be public
> > > too?
> >
> > I'd say, judging by the code snippets, that the implementations should be
> > protected instead.
> Yes, that would be fine with me. It's a problem with the Kimono C# bindings 
> because you can't override a protected abstract method definition with a 
> public implementation in a subclass in C#. If they were both protected I 
> wouldn't have to special case this one. Is it ok to change the KAr, KTar and 
> KZip implementations?

Yes, please do. This is an oversight from me when redesigning those classes.

-- 
David Faure, faure at kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).