RE: [Pnet-developers] Re: Possible misinterpretation of 'protected internal'

[Dominique Canazzi]

Carl-Adam Brengesjo wrote:
> check diff to the previous version and you'll notice power of the pnet
design ;)

Allow a couple of days for me to understand something :)

> Well, it turned out that both you (like Microsoft and Mono) and I was
correct :-) I was correct about the ECMA specs, and both csc and mcs does
not correspond to the ecma spec on this.
> However, the ECMA specs, apparently, does not correspond to the
`conventional oop terms'. So if we're gonna be 'nitty-pitty' we can blame
the MS guys anyways as they wrote the spec ;)

> Glad to learn new stuff anyway :D
> (thanks to Gopal that cleared this out for me)

Looked at the IRC Log.
Indeed, ECMA C# is fuzzy on many points. It's quite a surprise for me to
find so few interpretation problems.
BTW, has anyone heard about a (commonly accepted, even normative) glossary
of `conventional oop terms'?

-- dc.