| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
These regressed in e609f1f20b, which excluded all private methods from
overriding checks. We should only exclude private[this] members on the
low end of a pair, as was done before that commit, and, we must also
exclude private members on the high side.
Why? Warning: reverse engineered intuition follows.
We need to report an error when if a private method in a subclass
has matches a less-private method in the super class and report an
error, lest the user be fooled into thinking it might be invoked
virtually. On the other hand, adding a private method to a super
class shouldn't invalidate the choice names of public members in
its superclasses.
I've removed the test case added by that commit and will lodge a
reworked version of it that Paul provided as a new issue. That shows
a bug with qualified private + inheritance.
In addition, the expectation of `neg/accesses.check` is reverted
to its 2.10.3 version, which I believe is correct. When it was
changed in e609f1f20b it sprouted a variation, `neg/accesses-2`,
which has now changed behaviour. The intent of that test will
be captured in the aforementioned issue covering qualified private
inheritance.
|
