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

[Carl-Adam Brengesjo]

Eh, testcase provided should not compile, as it's X that's calling foo().
Only derived classes of A and classes in same assembly as A is allowed.
If a call to foo() fails from class B, then the problem you describe 
should occur -- not in the case provided.
Maybey if you declare a method in B, with the `new` flag, and it fails 
-- but not in the case provided.

Bug is bogus.

Dominique Canazzi wrote:
> Summary:  Possible misinterpretation of 'protected internal'
>
> Original Submission:  cscc seems to interpret this combination as "protected AND 
> internal". ECMA says "internal, OR ELSE protected".
>
> Example:
>
>    public class A
>    {
>       protected internal void foo () {}
>    }
>    public class B : A
>    {
>       private class X
>       {
>          private A owner;
>          public void SomeMethod ()
>          {
>             B myOwner = owner as B;
>             myOwner.foo ();
>          }
>       }
>    }
>
> does not compile when A and B defined in different assemblies.