Strange access types on KArchive pure virtuals

[Richard Dale]

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?

-- Richard