Let's say we have these files:

----
module Foo.Graphic.Drawable;

interface Drawable {
	void draw(bool);
}
----

----
module Foo.Graphic.Sprite;

import Foo.Graphic.Drawable;

class Sprite : Drawable {
protected:
	void draw(bool enable) {
		import core.stdc.stdio : printf;

		if (enable)
			printf("draw\n");
		else
			printf("no drawing...\n");
	}
}
----

----
module Foo.Window.Window;

import Foo.Graphic.Drawable;

class Window {
	void draw(Drawable d) {
		d.draw(true);
	}
}
----

I can call draw on Drawable, because it is declared public and I cannot call draw on Sprite because it is declared protected (this is already a bit weird, why can I redeclare the interface method draw as protected?) but I can call the protected draw method from Sprite through Drawable. Is this intended?

Could it be that this is intentional and has always worked?

On 03/11/2015 04:40 AM, Namespace wrote:

> I can call draw on Drawable, because it is declared public and I cannot
> call draw on Sprite because it is declared protected (this is already a
> bit weird, why can I redeclare the interface method draw as protected?)

It is the same in C++.

> but I can call the protected draw method from Sprite through Drawable.
> Is this intended?

As far as I know, yes it's intended and again the same in C++.

Ali

On Wednesday, 11 March 2015 at 15:22:43 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> On 03/11/2015 04:40 AM, Namespace wrote:
>
> > I can call draw on Drawable, because it is declared public
> and I cannot
> > call draw on Sprite because it is declared protected (this is
> already a
> > bit weird, why can I redeclare the interface method draw as
> protected?)
>
> It is the same in C++.
>
> > but I can call the protected draw method from Sprite through
> Drawable.
> > Is this intended?
>
> As far as I know, yes it's intended and again the same in C++.
>
> Ali

o.O nice to know. Thank you.